Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 September	4 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas BLARD[edit]

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

Article has a high degree of conflict of interest (autobiographical) and lacks reliable sources. Article for person was deleted at frwiki, so has apparently failed notability there. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A CV-type article with a probable undeclared WP:COI. Regarding notability, the couple of pieces of Chalais, Charente local coverage in the External Links are insufficient to demonstrate that the subject is more than a man with a job. No evidence of attained WP:FILMMAKER notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' : it should be deleted as it has no reliable source of informationAuthor Sanju (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable sources and everybody in 2020 knows we are not LinkedIn nor Imdb. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 9 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 09:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bespoke Real Estate[edit]

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

does not seem notable. "is the first and only $10M+ brokerage firm with no independent agents" doesn't automatically make it notable, and even that statement has a failed statement tag on it. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The references might yield enough material for a viable article, but it isn't ready for mainspace yet. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per DGG. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 13:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and salt name My concern is that the article would be moved back to mainspace without sufficient improvement and we'll be having this discussion again in the near future. --John B123 (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Draftify' this requires more information to be visible on Wikipedia Author Sanju (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Lacks in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources.----Pontificalibus 06:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:SPAM. A real article can not be made from this mess. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 9 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pear Media[edit]

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

non-notable publishing company, fails WP:NCORP Praxidicae (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The organisation lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 01:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly unnotable (I note that my PROD was contested, albeit with no explanation whatsoever). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources given. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS for this - the one source given relates to the organisation. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian Could you perhaps elaborate (and fix your signature)? Praxidicae (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae Yes, thanks, I've fixed that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian so you think we should keep this because there is no RS? Praxidicae (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I did mean that to be a delete - article cleaarly unsourced. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No SIGCOV. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. // Timothy :: talk 20:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails NCORP/GNG HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This article is lacking sources. The creator may need more time to develop the article in sandbox or as a draft and then could be revisited at a later date. Dharp86 01:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thriteen-and-a-half-years on is "at a later date". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 8 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 Georgia State Route 25#Savannah connector route. Tone 09:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Barnes Pelote Bridge[edit]

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

I've mostly been prodding non-notable bridges lately, as the stub ones seem fairly noncontroversial, but this one has a little more going for it, so taking it to AFD. Of the sources in the article, the first is a map, which is excluded as significant coverage by WP:GEOFEAT. The second is primary source legislation naming the bridge. The third does not mention the bridge, and the final one is dead, but appears to be about the person the bridge is named for, not the bridge itself. This piece only mentions the bridge in one sentence, but suggests that it was formerly known as the Bay Street Viaduct, giving another source this needs searched for. Likewise, this only mentions the bridge in one sentence. This mentions the bridge, but doesn't seem significant, although it is paywalled for me. This article seems to be largely the same as the preceeding one. This piece mentions the bridge under the former name, but not in a significant way. I'm not seeing any way this is notable, as it's only a bunch of passing mentions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aerial and street view photos show it's a pretty generic low overpass, nothing indicating notabiity. Reywas92^Talk 23:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgia State Route 25#Savannah connector route per WP:CHEAP as it's at least named rather than a "Name of Street Viaduct"; otherwise it's a generic viaduct. Nate • (chatter) 23:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Just an ordinary bit of highway bridge. Mangoe (talk) 18:11, 8 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Tredgold[edit]

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

I started to trim the promotional content, but soon realised that there would be little or nothing left. Not seeing how this passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Nothing here but vapid LinkedIn stuff. Salt to stop more time-wasting recreations. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Supported by lots of promotional churnalism, with no real independent sourcing and notability evident. Appears to have been written to support his speaking business. Plausible WP:CSD#G11 speedy, on that basis. Certainly WP:PROF is far out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some promotional sentences were removed with their heading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas Kwarbai (talk • contribs)

Delete If the first thing you say when describing yourself is "keynote speaker", you're not notable. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePretty thin coverage here, mostly referencing his own work and non notable titles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a very long line of overly promotional articles on businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's certainly published some things and headed a company, but I'm not seeing may citations or sufficient independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:PROF. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Ten years ago, an academic could laugh this off, but in 2020, everybody who can read knows we are not a LinkedIn type of free service. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 9 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.50 Peacekeeper[edit]

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

Doesn't look notable, and has been tagged for notability since 2016. The source currently in the article is from the website of the company that the cartridge designer is president of. A WP:BEFORE search is bringing up a bunch of sales sites, blogs, and especially online firearms forums, none of which are even closely to reliability. There's significant coverage here, but that site looks like nowhere near WP:RS. Here's a typical form page mentioning this. Get's a brief mention in a list of cartridges here. I just don't think this is a notable cartridge. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independant sources establishing notability for this, as per OP, source is connected to the company. Suspect promotional article? Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPRODUCT. Less Unless (talk) 08:36, 6 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. There is a consensus that this fighter does not meet our standards for inclusion at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assad Al Hanini[edit]

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

None of his fights have been in a top-tier MMA competition so does not meet WP:NMMA John B123 (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NMMA.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He’s a pioneer in the Middle East world of mixed martial arts and have fought in a top tier mma organization which is cage warriors as well as fighting in the top mna promotion in the middle east at that time Desert Force, and now working with Brave Combat federation of bahrain which is a huge company right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.32.122.27 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— 46.32.122.27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete He has no top tier fights (Cage Warriors has never been that) and apparently (according to Sherdog) has never fought anyone who has ever won an MMA fight. He hasn't fought since 2011 and he's not close to meeting WP:NMMA. Coverage is either routine sports reporting or passing mentions, like the one on his support for Brave's anti COVID-19 campaign. So there's no evidence that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure that but more importantly you’re forgetting the fact that he’s one of the pioneers of mixed martial arts in the middle east, which is a huge deal, as well as being one of first three arab fighters to fight in foreign companies, plus cage warriors is one of the biggest organizations in UK, with many fighters in the ufc, and also their fights on ufc fight pass, adding to that the role he has at brave cf is combined with management roles following with the shaikh, and the coverage done in some articles mentioned of him were done by Farah Hanoun, who works as a sports person for many outlets such as mmajunkie, making that sports coverage other than articles from arabsmma, mmaindia, tapology, fightinfo, and others.

Cheers mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramongonsalis123 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of fighters on wikipedia, were in a number of mma organizations that you don’t consider top tier, the likes of Giorgio Andrews, André Amado, Amir Aliakbari and a large number of others, but were somewhat pioneers or starters of mma trends in theri respective countries except Giorgio Andrews from that list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.231.71 (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability is met, amongst other factors Cheers mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramongonsalis123 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Ramongonsalis123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions which talk about why comparing articles to each other isn't a valid AfD argument. But I did look at the fighters you mentioned. The Andrews article is tagged for questionable notability and a lack of significant independent coverage, Amado meets WP:NMMA, and Aliakbari won a FILA world wresting title to show notability. This subject fails to meet any notability criteria. It doesn't matter who wrote an article on him or who he works for because notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you’re well, the comparing between articles wasn’t my comment that one someone else’s , Mine was the keep as notability is met was referring to my comment “ Yes, sure that but more importantly you’re forgetting the fact that he’s one of the pioneers of mixed martial arts in the middle east, which is a huge deal, as well as being one of first three arab fighters to fight in foreign companies, plus cage warriors is one of the biggest organizations in UK, with many fighters in the ufc, and also their fights on ufc fight pass, adding to that the role he has at brave cf is combined with management roles following with the shaikh, and the coverage done in some articles mentioned of him were done by Farah Hanoun, who works as a sports person for many outlets such as mmajunkie, making that sports coverage other than articles from arabsmma, mmaindia, tapology, fightinfo, and others.“ My argument was referring to the pioneers of the game in the middle east and having these organizations being top organizations in the middle east and one being a top one in UK.

Cheers mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramongonsalis123 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOTRESUME. In 2008, this could have been forgiven, but everybody in 2020 knows we are not a LinkedIn nor do we publish essay-like biographies by his friend or agent. Please see the SPA's contributions. To claim that you didn't know the rules is insulting to the community. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir this page has been published in 2020, and I don’t know what exactly you’re talking about when you say essay like biographies, while being completely insulting myself or any other contributor to wikipedia, myself being a sports coverage person that had a lot of experience and exposure in the sporting events in the middle east especially Mixed Martial Arts, to vote for deletion is one thing, but that is not in any way a proper way to respond to my comments or any other comments put before by any contributor, I’m sorry to see this heading in another way, and seeing this a lot while putting info about figures in the middle east, getting these kind of responses that is out of context, due to lack of knowledge, lack of contributes from the middle east, or other reasons that I’m not aware of. Again some of the arguments made before were for the pioneers of mma in mena region whatever response you have I’m sure could be put in a better way and also more related to the subject. Again sorry this has taken so long

Cheers mate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramongonsalis123 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again with all due respect beyond the insulting comment responding to me before, this is a case of notability and it being not a resume of someone. Cheers mate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramongonsalis123 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 10 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

America's Original Sin[edit]

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

Coverage is routine. Article has been tagged for 3 years. It currently fails WP:BOOKCRIT criteria, as the 3 citations are 1) an inteview/transcript with the author, 2) written by the author, and 3) a non-neutral source. 90% of the article content was created by a blocked editor. Seems to be WP:PROMO. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK. I found ~~three~~ two reviews: [1], ~~[2]~~, [3]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Fails WP:BOOKCRIT as already noted, and 2) isn't about this book. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also [4] in Friends Journal. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep per these sources showing a sufficiently significant book. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - Not sure what's wrong with Publisher's Weekly. Just because it's a positive review doesn't mean it's unusable. I can't access Aleatory Pondering's second source, but the third one looks good. Reviewed by the American Professional Chaplains here, although I'm not 100% for sure about that source. It looks like it passes WP:NBOOK, albeit just barely. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the nominator's dismissal of the substantial Publishers Weekly review. Briefly quoting the author is not the same as an unedited interview. The Emily Callon review identified by AleatoryPonderings is good, too. pburka (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are lots of reviews. I added two more: "'America's Original Sin is profound" from the Park City Daily News, and "All Christians should read this book" from the Springfield News-Leader. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reviews and coverage that have been found during this AFD and added to the article allow it to pass WP:NBOOK. I also agree that the PW article looks to be a perfectly valid source. Rorshacma (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2016/01/29/january-29-2016-americas-original-sin/28859/ https://www.npr.org/2015/10/11/447796752/parables-for-understanding-a-nations-racial-sin https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/religionandethicsreport/jim-wallis-on-racism,-white-privilege-and-the-bridge-to-a-new-a/7274148 Book so notable they interviewed him about it in places. Significant coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 23:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, exceeds WP:NBOOK with numerous reviews, some of which have been added to the article, looks like another case of not digging around for sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The sources clearly exist and directly in detail. Archrogue (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Well-known book. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 9 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Edwards (footballer)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination - a contested PROD arising out of an unseemly edit war. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NFOOTY as Edwards has never made an appearance. The repeated disruptive editing also seemed to have no logic, I didn't know how to stop it. User:Hjk1106 22:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:NFOOTY, in terms of WP:GNG, she has more chance passing on her boxing coverage but even that isn't enough for me Spiderone 10:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and NFOOTY failure. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that my nom was procedural and I wasn't necessarily arguing for deletion. I just had this minor spat bubbling away on my watchlist and rather than having a prod being added and removed ad infinitum I thought it better dealt with here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines Jack1956 (talk) 09:12, 5 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 per WP:SNOW as nobody agrees with the nomination. The article has been substantially improved per WP:HEY so the chances of a turnaround are negligible. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Ami[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable. Google search shows passing mentions, churnalism, and run-of-the-mill press releases and rehashed press releases. Waggie (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least in my house, this was literally a household name. See [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I would be astounded if there weren't more out there, but it is tough to weed out the hits in French. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting and coming up with all the links, clearly that took time and effort and it's appreciated. Note that French language sources would be acceptable, providing they meet WP:RS. We aren't picky about the language of a source, so long as it's reliable. It may or may not be a household name, but the problem we face is that there's a variety of documentation about how to use the subject (such as what you linked to), there doesn't seem to be that much about the subject. Please read WP:SIGCOV. The bottom line is that notability is, more or less, about whether or not there's enough content to write a substantive article, and I'm not sure we can glean too much about the subject for writing a substantive article. Waggie (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the results of a Google search for a common household product will naturally be worthless, but a product that has been on the shelves for over a century does get written about. There are old issues of Consumer Reports, for example, and discussions of their advertising methods. It's even in Isaac Asimov's autobiography. He recalls a box his family kept in the bathroom when he was a child, and how in his childish naïveté he was impressed that the company was so conscientious that if the company ever found that the power had scratched, they would change the slogan to "Only Scratched Once!" [13]. Really, it's just a matter of searching harder. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My last reply here, I think, then I'll let it go for folks to decide. Thanks for commenting. Could you point out which sources you feel actually meet WP:SIGCOV? Waggie (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waggie, How about this book chapter? Cross, Mary (2002). "Bon Ami Scouring Powder". A Century of American Icons: 100 Products and Slogans from the 20th Century Consumer Culture. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-0-313-09262-6. OCLC 1029270577. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, thanks for that! There's a paragraph spanning pages 3-4 in that chapter that discuss Bon Ami that looks promising, and that I would consider as a step towards meeting SIGCOV. However, that's only one source and SIGCOV calls for multiple sources (it's quite consistent in the plural) and links to the essay WP:3REFS for further guidance. If we allow a single source to establish notability, then we don't have a balanced viewpoint for readers. Also, is the slogan or it's fairly ordinary origins really the only thing that people care about with this product? Please remember that simply because something is well-known doesn't make it notable. YouTuber's don't get articles simply because they have a large audience, there has to be substantial coverage to support that they truly stand out in some way. Anyway, that's my thought process here. Thank you! Waggie (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right, now I have WP:THREE encyclopedia entries (also listed in the further reading section), plus the other sources listed above. We have kept articles with less SIGCOV than this. (This will also be my last comment, as I feel as if I'm taking too much room :) ) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cross, Mary (2002). "Bon Ami Scouring Powder". A Century of American Icons: 100 Products and Slogans from the 20th Century Consumer Culture. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-0-313-09262-6. OCLC 1029270577.
Dorman, Evelyn S. (1994). "Bon Ami". In Jorgensen, Janice (ed.). Encyclopedia of Consumer Brands. Vol. 2. St. James Press. pp. 66–68. ISBN 9781558623378. OCLC 756196954.
Woodward, A. (2003). "Faultless Starch/Bon Ami Company". In Grant, Tina (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories. Vol. 55. St. James Press. pp. 142–145. ISBN 9781558626966. OCLC 769044999.

Keep as per Waggie and XOReaster. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though I do not find the RS compelling and in depth, I am convinced that the product is notable. There are sources such as the Kansas City Business Journal here Lightburst (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The coverage in A Century of American Icons: 100 Products and Slogans from the 20th Century Consumer Culture is excellent: a page and a half of specific, detailed history of the product in an independent published book, which itself lists 3 references at the end of the passage on page 4. :) No doubts. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:20, 3 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 as newly added sources establish notability. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsterthursday[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. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was a mainstream movie in Norway and as such was reviewed in every major Norwegian newspaper. These have been added. To the unsourced synopsis I however say: CUT!. Geschichte (talk) 09:44, 4 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NetworkVirginia[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:ORG; I could not find any independent sources. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company. The article has gone 14 years without the inclusion of a single reference, that just shows the inability to find any coverage from reliable sources to warrant it worth keeping. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a promotional stub with zero proper sourcing that establishes why this company is notable.TH1980 (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG is not met by any means. No sources at all Maltuguom (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the site. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:35, 8 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 17:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Shaking Street Preachers[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG despite considerable recent page views. The coverage in media passing WP:AUD is a line item or a brief passing. It's coverage is limited to mention as one of the protest groups, but there has not been enough significant, indepdent and reliable coverage with at least one of them meeting audiece range criteria. Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the sources in the article are insufficient to indicate notability, and I haven't been able to find any better sources. This could conceivably be merged to Patriot Prayer, given that most of the coverage of the group (as opposed to the coverage of its most prominent member) is in the context of its members' appearances at Patriot Prayer events. But the possible confusion and/or inconvenience of such a merge probably outweighs the benefits. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article talks about a group that has gained some notoriety during the last riots,this group has already been identified by the SPLC, and his activities doesnt seem that decrease, and could be generator of more violent incidents. The page needs some of attention for avoid errors and update speculative data.Tetsou TheIronman--Tetsou TheIronman (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Draftify

comment @Tetsou TheIronman:, Care to elaborate which sources you were able to find that satisfy the WP:SIGCOV and WP:SIRS requirements? I looked and didn't find them. Graywalls (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' the sources in the article are insufficient to indicate notability, and I haven't been able to find any better sources.Author Sanju (talk) 14:35, 8 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ijeoma Balogun[edit]

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

New page review: biography of a young CEO whose only real claim to notability is that she has been named in the Forbes Africa under 30 list of 2019. This received a fair amount of coverage so there are sources, but in essence this looks like PR supporting a promotional article for a PR practitioner. I don’t think the sources really demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Some references are interviews, others are lists of the fabulous fortunate. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is only notable for being named in the Forbes Africa under 30 list of 2019. Fails WP:GNG as no reliable source discussed her independently. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 13:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, references here mainly for being on the forbes list 13:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nomMaltuguom (talk) 19:44, 7 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 delete. WP:G12 - unambiguous copyright violation of https://www.eg24.news/2020/07/hagia-sophia-egyptian-saint-ignited-her-life.html Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia of Egypt[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article with copyvios, also likely to be factually incorrect (Hagia Sophia was not built for or dedicated to Sophia of Egypt, per Hagia Sophia). Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Doesn't seem to qualify for speedy deletion, though, hence this AfD DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. I am unable to find any WP:RS material attesting to the existence of this saint. There are a few mentions of Moses being counted among the wise (sophia) of Egypt, e.g. [14], but no mention of such a saint or martyr that I can locate. Willing to be proved wrong. 24.151.56.107 (talk) 18:16, 4 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbird Group[edit]

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

Article cites primary sources and press releases and it reads like a press release itself. Fails WP:CORP as lacking WP:SIGCOV. Now a part of BeyondTrust following an acquisition (see esp. BeyondTrust#Acquisitions), at best any content worth merging should be merged into and redirected to the BeyondTrust article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 04:58, 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 no consensus. There is no consensus about whether this meets the relevant notability/inclusion guidelines/policy. In 3-6 (or more) months it may be more clear about whether the sourcing supports this as an independent topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Cyberattacks on the Miami-Dade Public Schools System Computer Network[edit]

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

Declined PROD. This article fails WP:NEVENT. Specifically, WP:GEOSCOPE states that

An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article.

This just happened, and it essentially boils down to "Kid disrupted Miami schools for a few days". This is certainly important to the city, and while there's been some reporting of this outside, the effect isn't lasting (nor can it be immediately after the event occurred, nor is it likely to be anyway). Neither is there likely to be any outside lasting interest after the brief splash of a story it's made. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does appear to fail NEVENT. Also has the potential to be COI creation. Naleksuh (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. National news sources like CBS, NBC and The Hill just started covering this event over the past 24 hours. That should take care of WP:GEOSCOPE. It is early to determine whether WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE exists. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#History for now. It is a significant event in the school district's history (which currently ends with 2013). If RS coverage persists to grow more than a stub, a stand-alone article can be spun back out. • Gene93k (talk)
Comment. I'm the one who created the article and I have no association with the Miami-Dade Public School system nor do I have any relatives who are part of it. Therefore no conflict of interest exists. Also, more cyberattacks may come in the following weeks. MDPS has experienced several in the past so these could lead to more crashes. Please know this did not just affect the schools in the city of Miami but rather all the schools in Miami-Dade County, a much larger area. Finally, the MDPS is the fifth largest school district in the US. All of this should warrant an article. Lechonero —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 3 September 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting a large school district doesn't automatically get lasting notability. The 2015 terror hoax that shut down LAUSD, made a bigger splash of news coverage against a bigger school district. The event article was merged for lack of lasting impact. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if kept, this article needs a substantial rewrite. As currently written, the article is a pseudobiography of one arrest, which names and features a not yet tried minor more prominently than the events of the disruption. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pseudobiography? Are you suggesting the info in the article is deliberately fabricated? By the way, you're free to rewrite, change or contribute to the article instead of criticizing it. I've been the only one working on it. I was thinking of rewriting it but I'm not going to put in that effort unless I know the article is going to remain in WP. Lechonero (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lechonero: The concern that called for rewriting refers to WP:PSEUDO: the article as written was mainly a one-event biography of the suspect. The article is now more balanced about the event. Naming the not yet convicted suspect so prominently still is a balance/WP:BLPCRIME concern. WP:NOT#NEWS still applies as coverage has apparently faded with the news cycle. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Gene93k. WP:NOTNEWS. This is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber attack on Pensacola, Florida. – The Grid (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to weak keep given of the updated information now. I would also note a possible redirect to 2020 Miami-Dade Public Schools cyberattack to match the naming convention of similar cyberattacks. – The Grid (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Predicting by the end of this coverage will grow substantially. Have heard Russian panic already. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:EVENTCRIT#2 with widespread coverage. There is WP:SIGCOV involving, Congress, the FBI, the United States Secret Service and national news media. Here are a few: Yahoo News 1, ABC News 2, Miami Herald 3. The FBI does not get involved in "local" issues but they were involved in this investigation 4. U.S. Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell of Florida became involved 5. The United States Secret Service does not become involved in "local" issues but they were involved in this investigation 6. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The FBI does not get involved in "local" issues is just flat-out false: the FBI provides all sorts of assistance to local police forces upon request, that's one of its most important roles. And that's exactly what happened here. Ditto the Secret Service. To a first approximation, any cyber-crime carried out anywhere in the US will have the local police force asking the FBI to provide assistance. The fact that the local Congressperson has an opinion shows that she is attentive to what happens in her district, not that this "involves Congress" (it does not). --JBL (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's reminding me of mass shootings in the US which a lot have been condensed into lists such as List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019. – The Grid (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is kept it is going to need a massive amount of cleanup which I have held off on doing since it appeared to be nearing deletion. However I assume the result here would be to merge. Naleksuh (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just local news. Passes the general notability guidelines for coverage. Dream Focus 23:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Not a big news, these days DOS attacks by kids are common and we shouldn't be writing about every script kiddie attacks in the US. Or maybe these LOIC/HOIC attacks can be mentined in a separate list article. +++ 我是えっちゃ 03:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by User:Dream Focus and User:Lightburst. Article is not what it was when nominated here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As pointed out already, this is the fourth largest school district in America and the incident has garnered major media attention based on the articles in the New York Times, ABC, etc... And it's bound to only get more attention due to the FBI and Secret Service investigations.Jediting1 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event has historical valueMaltuguom (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed. Also important as a reminder to keep history from repeating itself. TruthLover123 (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a newspaper. I doubt this event has lasting importance. Alternatively, merge to Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: A week since this debate opened, coverage of this event has faded. For now, lasting interest beyond breaking news is speculative. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero indication of WP:LASTing impact. We are not the news. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eddie891, also per WP:BLPCRIME we should defer on putting details of a 16 year old's criminal activity on one of the world's most public websites unless essential. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse? Kenosha protests? Lightburst (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosha protests, with 2 dead, $2m+ in damage and non-stop controversy about police conduct, gets the ongoing RS coverage that the Miami-Dade DDoS attack doesn't. Also, the Kenosha shooter gets a brief mention in the 27th paragraph of the article, also the dispute there is not who did it, but whether the shootings are criminal. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 does raise a good point with WP:BLPCRIME - just dealt with a speedy delete of an incident that happened 15 years ago. Also, experienced the same thing with Death of Julie Laible. Information for people under the age of 18 were redacted depending on the charges. – The Grid (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Dream Focus and Lightburst. Article easily passes WP:GEOSCOPE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is much stronger now in that it includes many more references and provides more information on the event. Lechonero (talk) 00:11, 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 09:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fredie Blom[edit]

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

Farcical longevity claim, the sources all center on the fact he claimed to be a ludicrous age, smoked, and then died. The only sources discuss his death and two very small portions of his life. No obvious place to merge any of this, so it should be deleted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This misrepresents the issue. He has a government-issued identity document, so the claim is not just "his claim", and is probably as reliable as the many others that are listed on this basis. Greenman (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how supercentenarian validation works. Read the articles supercentenarian and longevity claims, and look through the Gerontology Research Group (and their website, which is fairly interesting). I've seen people with government documents showing they're 137 (see the entry on Bir Narayan Chaudhary in longevity myths), that doesn't make their claims remotely plausible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 10:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To respond here as well, this is not about "supercentenarian validation", as I agree the claim is dubious. This is about the subject's notability. Greenman (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the drawbacks of the article but it was posted in the ITN on 25 August 2020. Abishe (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typical longevity fanfluff article: dubious age claim, transient notability. Contains virtually no encyclopedic content. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEVENT, WP:NOPAGE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous other typical longevity fanfluff articles, you fail to say why this one in particular is worthy of deletion. Greenman (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've been pruning them for 2 years now. See here for just the first installment of that effort. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unconvincing reasons why an African longevity claim in particular should be targeted for deletion when Wikipedia contains numerous others. As stated above, has even appeared on Wikipedia:In The News and media around the world. Greenman (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has absolutely nothing to do with his being African, my history shows I've nominated fanfluff supercentenarian articles from people in a lot of countries around the world. This article never should have been in ITN; it has almost no substantive sourcing, and certainly nothing approaching the level of veracity required to even consider him being a verified supercentenarian, much less the second oldest man in history. So what, he smoked and claimed to be an implausible age? That's thoroughly run of the mill for longevity claims. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does it have to do with then? How does this differ from the unverified claims in Category:Longevity_claims, most of which are likely false. As pointed out above, the claim is based on his identity document, not on "his claim". You make it sound like he's some random person with no identification claiming something outrageous. Instead, the outrageous claim that got him worldwide coverage is based on official documentation. Greenman (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are a lot of articles formerly in that category which have been deleted (my personal favorite is Wook Kundor, which is one of the most frankly bizarre things I've ever read; you can get an idea from the AfD). They're a combination of ancient and medieval figures (why we wouldn't be certain about someone living 2,000 or 500 years ago seems self-evident), people who were actually famous but we're not sure exactly about age (c.f. Silas Simmons and Taiwo Olowo), and a couple of people who became the subjects of sustained, substantive coverage for ridiculous age claims (see Shigechiyo Izumi; there are a couple of these which really should go too, and I think I know which one I'm nominating next). A short spate of coverage about smoking, being depressed about COVID (as if that's news, good lord), and dying doesn't make for a substantive article, per WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- typical gerontology fanfluff: sketchy age claim, lots of babble about his personal habits. It's poor form to insinuate someone's singling out articles about African people specifically and I hope the closing administrator takes note. Reyk _YO! 12:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing of substance, and this claim is not even well documented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with notability? Most of the people with articles listed on Category:Longevity_claims have claims that are even more dubious. Greenman (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actual South African editor here. This article should be deleted since there is no encyclopaedic content. It is pure fanfluff. LefcentrerightDiscuss 18:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The decision should be based on whether the topic is notable or not, rather than on claims such as "fanfluff", or "the claim is farcical", which are not relevant. WP:GNG states "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 [...] Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The BBC and the Guardian have devoted entire articles to this subject - he is the main topic of the sources - so notability should not be in doubt. In addition, take into account the existence of numerous other similar articles, Category:Longevity_claims. Greenman (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable enough for WP:GNG, I agree with Greenman's arguments. Jedi wiki 10 (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NOPAGE. Just a fanfluff article that lacks any encyclopedic content. A few longevity feature articles that say very little about the subject are its only sources. Given his extreme age claim to be the oldest man ever and no age validating sources (Guinness/GRG) supporting his claim, he doesn't qualify to be included in nearly any other longevity article. Just delete it. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:31, 9 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sujeet Kumar (IAS)[edit]

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

An IAS officer who lacks WP:SIGCOV; Notability not established. Ab207 (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable Indian civil servant with a non-notable position. - hako9 (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: GNG is not there. More sources requiredMaltuguom (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine news coverage for appointment to a non-notable position. Otherwise not covered in RS. Generally only senior bureaucrats having served at important posts are able to meet the notability criteria

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that the sourcing available is not sufficient to establish notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BangDB[edit]

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

This is a promotional article. The subject, people or organizations related to it have come up as Draft:Sachin_Sinha (its designer) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqlect (IQlect is the company that markets BangDB), and was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangdb. The first version of this incarnation (from 20 August 2020‎ ) bears striking resemblance to the deleted Draft:BangDB (deleted on 16 August 2020 per G7, at the request of its author). Weirdly, that first copy left broken links to the company's website. Whatever is going on here doesn't change the fact that the article fails to meet our notability criteria for products and services, WP:PRODUCT, and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Vexations (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not have significant independent coverage. Mentioned in list of nosql databases in an Indian textbook [15], and then the author has mentioned it in some semi-promotional interviews [16]. Being aware that influential software products often don't get coverage in WP:RS, I checked programming forums but could not find discussions about BangDB. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a database like NoSQL, dBase, and others. They don't usually have coverage in WP:RS like every other secular topic but do have encyclopedic value and merit for knowledge sake. MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't agree that BangDB and other databases don't have significant coverage in the media. From my little cursory research, I believe that BangDB meets the notability demands of WP:NSOFT and WP:SIGCOV. I searched BangDB in Google Books as recommended in WP:SOFT, I found some notable Google Books Results. I discovered that BangDB is featured on the following books:

1. Pattern and Data Analysis in Healthcare Settings - Page 166

2. Advances in Civil, Architectural, Structural and ... - Page 137

3. Encyclopedia of Business Analytics and Optimization - Page 789

4. Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth . PAGE 329

Secondly, I searched the BangDB in Google Scholar as recommended in WP:SOFT, I found some notable Google Scholar Results. It is featured on the following scholarly discourses:

1. Web Search and Browser Log analysis using BangDB for Decision Support

2. OPC UA

and a few others written in non-English languages

Thirdly, I searched BangDB in Google News as recommended in WP:SOFT, I found some Google News Results. It is featured on some news-related sources such as:

2. Global Key Value Database Market Analysis by Emerging Growth Factors and Revenue Forecast to 2026

3. KEY VALUE DATABASE MARKET GROWTH SET TO SURGE SIGNIFICANTLY DURING 2020 – 2025 | THE APACHE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, MEMCACHED, REDIS LABS, COUCHBASE

4. GLOBAL KEY VALUE DATABASE MARKET 2020-2025 KEY INSIGHTS, BUSINESS OVERVIEW, INDUSTRY TRENDS,(COVID-19 OUTBREAK) CHALLENGES BY TOP PLAYERS- THE APACHE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, MICROSOFT, COUCHBASE

5. Key Value Database Market Challenges and Growth Factor By 2026| The Apache Software Foundation, Redis Labs, Aerospike

and a few others

By the above, I strongly believe that BangDB as a database passes WP:NSOFT, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG and hence should be kept. Looking at the page, I guess the content is factual. If there are seemingly promotional words or tones, they should be removed and let the article be on wiki for educational purposes. My submssion anyway.Mariah200 (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Mariah200, I don't know how you interpret SIGCOV, but Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth Edition lists BangDB in the list of key-value database and offers ONLY this: Category: Key-Value Databases Databases: DynamoDB, Riak, Redis, Aerospike, Azure Table Storage, FoundationDB , LevelDB, GenieDB, BangDB,Chordless, Scalaris, Tokyo, Cabinet / Tyrant, Scalien, Voldemort, Dynomite, KAI, MemcacheDB, Chordless, HamsterDB, Tarantool/Box, Maxtable, Pincaster, RaptorDB, Mnesia, LightCloud, Hibari, OpenLDAP, LSM, STSdb. My added links show that we actually have quite a number of articles on key-value databases, and there are more in Key–value database (which could use some more references BTW).
  But I'm quite sure that such a listing is pretty much exactly what WP:SIGCOV calls "a trivial mention". The other sources are not much better. To other editors commenting here: please read the cited refs before letting yourself get convinced that that there is SIGCOV when there isn't. Vexations (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah that is a link-dump of insignificant mentions, of which five are the same insignificant mention in "Global Key Value Database Market report" and one is about decibels of bangs (or db-bang), and not this database. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify per above. There are enough reliable sources to establish WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. If it is decided to keep it, the article need a complete revamp to remove the promotional tone and unnecessary information. GiuliaZB (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having gone through the sources posted above and those in the article, there's no significant coverage. There is a bit of coverage on the company (which itself was deleted) and only trivial mentions of BangDB itself (some of which, per Thjarkur above, don't actually refer to the topic at hand). Doesn't meet the GNG. -M.Nelson (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the imposing pile of sources listed above simply do not seem to actually discuss the topic in any depth. Yes, BangDB is mentioned in several books and several websites (some of dubious reliability, regurgitating press releases). No, it does not appear to actually be discussed "as significant in its particular field" as required by WP:NSOFT, nor is there "significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" as required by WP:GNG. ~ mazca ^talk 18:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SOFTWARE looking at the Books and few websites it appeared.Maltuguom (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- does not pass WP:NSOFT.1292simon (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable software with no significant coverage in reliable soruces and no evidence of satisfying WP:NSOFT. GSS ^💬 06:04, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitto Password Manager[edit]

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

Plagued with issues, dead links to its official website or extension download pages. Needs to go. First nom didn't have enough participants. ~★ nmaia ^d 01:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though very problematic advertisement-like material could and should be removed, I can't find any reliable sources on the topic. Noahfgodard (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) ( Stupid bot : I've restored this !vote because it was wiped by an edit ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC) )[reply]

Keep: Dead links, which may sometimes be temporary, are not a reason for deletion. The article has been disrupted by claims of advertising which may be unfounded and at AfD I like to see it at the time of nom. not as negatively edited subsequently ... as that is often a sign a !delete voter needs to do that to win the argument ... positive improvements are welcome. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:N. Compare with 1Password and LastPass, which have received significant sustained attention from WP:RS. XVDC (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Djm-leighpark – Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 07:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the last reference is a decent software review which builds on the matter in the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:29, 3 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuur Groete aan Mannetjies Roux[edit]

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

I found this article among the remaining unreviewed content translations from 2016; see this discussion in 2016 for the history. Normally I would speedily move it to draft in accordance with this consensus, but User:Bradv has objected to this procedure, so here we are. I have yet to be convinced of this film's notability. —S Marshall T/C 13:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 13:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the existing source in the article, a Google search led me to just two pertinent sources, both of them reviews from the week of the film's release, this and this. For what it's worth, Rotten Tomatoes lists no reviews, though I don't know whether one would expect to find any there for a independent South African film. No indication of persistent note, falls well short of WP:GNG, and nothing to support WP:NFILM, as I think that at most one of the three writers (Diane de Beer) might be of national note. Largoplazo (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested the author of the original article (of which this is a translation) to try to provide additional information about the film -- references, reviews and reasons why it is notable. If they respond by adding anything to the original article, I will translate it and add it to this English version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallakj (talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the two full reviews identified above that show a likelihood of passing WP:GNG and possibly criteria 1 of WP:NFILM in my view,Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 3 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revathy Sampath[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ACTORBIO .And there is no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just spam links and unreliable sources on the article. Can't find anything substantial through websearch. - hako9 (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Glitz and glamour, Facebook, too! Fails WP:ELP for Facebook. No references are substantial, as per above. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Doesn't meet WP:GNG,WP:NACTOR,WP:ACTORBIO-- Padavalam ► 14:40, 7 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 09:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark[edit]

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

Non-notable member of former royal family which was deposed before she was born. This was deleted after a previous deletion discussion, it was re-created without a deletion review, an admin has declined a request for speedy deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This princess is the kind of member of a deposed royal family that Wikipedia can have an article about, because she has sought out the public spotlight for fashion modeling and been profiled in major media (Town & Country, Teen Vogue, Hello!). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked up the prior AfD, which was from 2011. At that time, the subject hadn't begun her fashion modeling career nor were there any media profiles of her cited; the article was pure genealogy. In that AfD, I recommended "delete", but I wrote: "... this deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if she becomes notable in the future (for example, as the kind of socialite frequently featured in Vanity Fair (magazine))." Well, here she is in Vanity Fair. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is almost no coverage, and even taking a licence and perhaps viewing the lady as a model, wouldn't cut it either. There is no coverage there either. The Vanity Fair is all passing mentions. The name is being used to push the brand, unfortunately not the person. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a single article, and you need multiple, independent, secondary sources that in-depth. A single article is more of the same, an indication that she is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the above user's reasoning. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The above user's reasoning was that four different articles I cited from four different magazines were "a single article". Can you explain what made that so persuasive? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the last discussion got this right, the sourcing does not add up to showing actual notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t believe royalty, including abolished monarchies, are inherited notability and her modeling work doesn’t add up to more than about 2 sentences. Who knows if in the future that will change. Trillfendi (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She has a strong media presence, to say the least. Articles and coverage in Vogue, Hello Magazine, Honey, Tatler, WWD, Greek City Times, W Magazine, Insider, US Magazine, Suitcase, Vanity Fair, La Ligne, Teen Vogue, Hola, The Sun, and The Daily Express. She certainly seems to meet the criteria for at least a notable socialite, IMO. I'd like to clarify that while she is also a member of a deposed royal family, she maintains a legal status as princess in the Kingdom of Denmark, which is very-much still a monarchy. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Although as a general rule I would regard princesses as notable, in her case her position as a princess of Denmark appears to be because she is the 4-greats granddaughter of Christian IX of Denmark, not a strong claim to notability. PatGallacher (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - While her status as a Danish princess may not establish notability, certainly the amount of coverage in the press (especially with sources like Vogue, Teen Vogue, Tatler, and W) establishes general notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the last deletion vote this individual has established herself as a notable model and socialite. Above users have included sources in well respected industry publications mentioning this individual. Irrespective of abolished Greek titles, she still has legal standing as a princess of Denmark, no matter how far the patriline descent from Christian IX. --Richiepip (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Personally, I am all for former royalty having their own Wikipedia articles as they represent a system (the monarchy) that governed the entire world for thousands of years and in some regions does to this day. But at the same time it is necessary that the article pass WP:GNG, which it does not. Firstly, the section about her fashion career in the article spans not more than four lines (one paragraph), which is the same amount of coverage her supposed romantic entanglement with Prince Harry has received, significantly bringing down its weightage. This indicates that her career as a model is still in its initial stages and nullifies the need for the article under WP:TOOSOON. Secondly, if the fact that she is present somewhere on the Danish line of succession warrants the article's existence then by the same logic, Savannah Phillips, Her Majesty's great-granddaughter who is far closer to the British throne than Princess Maria-Olympia is to the Danish one, should also get her own Wikipedia article. And even if her presence as a minor Danish princess is established, the article still fails under WP:NOTGENEALOGY. TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a notable socialite and arguably more notable than her younger brother Constantine-Alexios. She has been covered in reliable sources that are not tabloid or strictly fashion. For examples, Business Insider, International Business Times, Yahoo, CNN, El Mundo, La Vangaurdia, and Kathimerini to name a few. I am sure there are other Greek news sites that ran at least one article about her. Besides, there are other articles of socialites and fashion models that mostly consist of their early life, education, marriage, family, and career. StellarHalo (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Keeping aside the debate on the notability of the Princess' modelling career or lack of, two wrongs don't make one right! Not singling out this discussion but generally speaking...If there are other such articles that fail to meet the GNG's then those should be put up for discussion and deleted not vice-versa. Keeping an article whose notability is questionable because there are many more like it doesn't set a very constructive precedent. TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The point I was trying to make is that despite the fact that the amount of information on a socialite or fashion model's career we could write from sources is often limited to maybe a short paragraph or two, the notability of those articles was never questioned. I have not seen any factual argument that support the notion that these socialites and fashion models have no significant coverage and fail WP:GNG in face of plethora of reliable sources. StellarHalo (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As per nom; Not a very significant modelling career, very far down in the Danish line of succession and will never head her royal house either. Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She actually is not in the line of succession to the Danish throne, as her grandmother renounced her rights when she married into the Greek Royal Family, which itself lost their Danish succession rights when, upon the implementation of female succession to the Danish throne, the line of succession was limited to descendants of King Christian X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to establish notability Charmk (talk) 23:42, 2 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, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm not even sure why this is listed here?. Just a basic google search shows there are a *lot* of articles on her, including some feature articles in Vogue, Vanity Fair, Marie Claire, Times of India, New York Times, Tatler, Harpersbazarre, USmagazine, Busnessinsider. A noted socialite, royal figure, model and fashion figure. Wide coverage in news and other titles as well. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article. As other has noted she is well covered as model and socialite, and she is a member of not one but two royal houses, one of which is very much extant. Iv'e added some information about her career as model and additional sources to the article. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She does pass GNG: the sources provided are reliable, secondary and independent of the subject, and she's the focus of the sources, which means there's "significant coverage" as defined by GNG. Royalty and nobility fail GNG (1) when they are only mentioned in passing in sources: i.e. there's a list of descendants somewhere and they're listed there, which is a trivial mention as they are not the focus; or (2) when they are only mentioned in sources that are not reliable, or not secondary or not independent of the subject. Neither applies in this particular case. DrKay (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Delete even more deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not realy a helpfull comment - and you have allready called for delete previosly on 28 August 2020. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert If that's your only objection, I would note that she is a princess of the Danish Monarchy, who are very much not deposed! Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is still a very minor part of a monarchy, who does not actually do things in government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's correct, that Olympia has only a minor part in the Danish monarchy, and isn't in any way involved in the politics of Denmark to my knowledge, but often I think you republicans, especially those of you who actually don't live in a monarchy, in some respects misjudge the role of the monarchy (and it's not about whether one dislike the institution of monarchy or not). Many modern monarchs, and monarchies has various subtle ways, where they directly or indirectly can influence political questions, or in some cases being a neutral arbitrator, or possessing the popularity and personal integrity that can keep some states (with internal frictions between various communities within the realm) from faling apart. And in the formal sence most monarchies are still part of "doing things in government" as we for instance can se from this picture, where the queen of Denmark is approving that her daughter-in-law, crownprincess Mary, can be granted the role as regent of the realm if such a need may occur once in a while in the future. It's interesting to see from this picture, that this is not a 'special' or 'extraordinary' meeting in the council of the Sovereign with only this one issue on the agenda, it's a quite regular meeting in the council (there have been around 600 of these meetings in the reign of the present queen of Denmark) and we can see the large number of laws in front of the queen, that needs her approval before they can enter into force (we see the primeminister to the right in the picture). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SIGCOV is met hereMaltuguom (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually it looks like, that there are a lot more sources and coverage to be found on this individual, than both the article about her and this AfD discussion reveals. It seem, that all the references so far for the article and probably also most of the searches for this discussion is based on her "full" name "Maria-Olympia of Greece", but in actual fact she dosen't use Maria privately nor professionally she just calls herself Olympia, so if you search for instance Google for "Maria-Olympia of Greece" you will only get around 45% of the results as if you searched for "Olympia of Greece" in stead. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now updated with information on her studies at university and other personal details (including her being known by the name Olympia). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. Also searching for her using different languages will reveal many more sources as well. StellarHalo (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on media coverage she passes GNG. - dwc lr (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV - not as royalty per se. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ Comment It has been more than 7 days (now 11days) since the relist. This is deliberately procrastinating. However, the final relist is clearly kept (all Keep and 0 delete- so clearly kept), but admin are procrastinating to close this one and her brother AfD, more than they need to. They will wait again until they get more delete votes from Anti-monarchist. So why is it still discussion for? Our time is wasted. I understand what they want so I change my vote to Delete. Be happy ကိုမေကိိုလိုး နမလိုး မအေလိူးတွေ :) . 37.111.14.243 (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A rather strange comment, especially since it's not until tomorrow (Friday 11 September 2020) that 7 days has past since the relisting of this AfD. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean his brother article Oleryhlolsson. Some cow 🐄 spreading the mat near the end of the match. 37.111.14.243 (talk) 22:52, 10 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) 21:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2004–05 Newport County A.F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS due to the fact that they were playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 11:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS as the coverage is all routine and the club was not playing in a professional league Spiderone 08:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:45, 5 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 Newport County A.F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS due to the fact that they were playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS as the coverage is all routine and the club was not playing in a professional league Spiderone 08:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:45, 5 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) 21:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 Newport County A.F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS due to the fact that they were playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS as the coverage is all routine and the club was not playing in a professional league Spiderone 08:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:45, 5 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 Newport County A.F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS due to the fact that they were playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS as the coverage is all routine and the club was not playing in a professional league Spiderone 08:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:45, 5 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Newport County A.F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS due to the fact that they were playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS as the coverage is all routine and the club was not playing in a professional league Spiderone 08:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:45, 5 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Barrow A.F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS due to the fact that they were playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 11:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS as the coverage is all routine and the club was not playing in a professional league Spiderone 08:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:45, 5 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Luton Town F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG 1 2 3. WP:NSEASONS does not take precedence over GNG and the nominator should have first checked whether sources exist that demonstrate notability before nominating the article for deletion. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably meets GNG and is well written with well-sourced prose. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Giant Snowman 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NSEASONS. Lightburst (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Depends how strict people want to be, but a lot of season articles could take some notes on how to construct prose from here, this is a good example of how a non-league article can push beyond GNG. Because this is a winning season that got them back into the league I am happy with it. Otherwise I might have been shouting WP:ROUTINE from the roof-tops. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 8 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shatrughan Sahu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources satisfy sigcov. His position as a non-elected member of a party is also non-notable. - hako9 (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would be surprised if a state president (2018-2020) for an important political party wouldn't be sufficient for notability. If more sources are requested, they are probably to some extent to be found in other languages than English. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oleryhlolsson, An ex-state president btw. It would have been an important role, if the party had a presence in Bihar state, but they don't. - hako9 (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV to pass GNG, NPOL, or BASIC. // Timothy :: talk 21:22, 11 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 09:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Price (rugby)[edit]

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

Amateur player does not meet general notability standards Skeene88 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Skeene88, why was the creator not informed of this AfD? Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn. If you use WP:Twinkle then the creator is informed but the instructions as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion do not mention telling them. Of course it is a good idea to do that but not mandatory. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:37, 8 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 and redirect to Fanta#International availability. The consensus is to delete, recreating as a redirect to give the 7,000 viewers a month somewhere to go Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International availability of Fanta[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. To be clear, I am not nominating this for deletion just because it's a silly topic. I think it's possible to cover regional variations in food items in an encyclopedic manner (e.g., American Chinese cuisine, Jollof rice, Poutine, List of pizza varieties by country, Hot dog variations). However, this article is currently a poorly sourced product catalogue. I looked for additional references and found mostly sporadic coverage of particular limited-edition flavours. Cheers, gnu 57 16:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 16:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Information already found at Fanta#International_availability. This article was created April 2007. It originally had far more information [17] although through most of its history it was just a brief stub. Dream Focus 23:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Fanta#International_availability this is not a WP:A10 situation, but the information is better in the main article. Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOR and we are not a catalogue of products available in specific countries. Ajf773 (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOR, WP:LISTN and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Would overwhelm any merge target with an unnecessary level of detail. // Timothy :: talk 03:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timothy Spiderone 21:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:SIGCOV. I see a single article online, which is not wide coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 9 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Chrysostomou[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, hasn't played yet in a fully professional league or cup game or the senior national team. Fram (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG as well. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 11:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:29, 8 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Players[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

0 This article was discussed in 2006 on whether to delete or not and it was decided to keep based on the fact that notable content would be sourced. It has been 14 years and nothing notable has been added and sourced. The page continues to read as an advertisement and does not support any content calling the topic notable. I suggest merging some content of this page into the Queen's University at Kingston as a small summary and deleting the page. User:R.schneider101 15:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we've been waiting 14 years for sources to be cited, and they still haven't been cited, I think that's enough time to wait. If this student comedy troupe really is notable, the article can be re-created later when someone actually finds the reliable sources to do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only coverage I could find of the improv group was in the Queen's student newspaper. There are some hits for "Queen's players" in other media but those are references to sports. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, more promotional and something you'd find on their own website than something for Wikipedia. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable college group that does not appear to have much, if any, coverage in reliable sources. The arguments presented in the AFD 14 years ago, that there were notable individuals that had been part of the group, does not actually mean much, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so the group itself would need sources discussing it that established its own notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 14 years is far, far more than enough time for sources to come forward if they in fact existed. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (but Delete whatever cannot be sourced). Suggested partial merge into Queen's University at Kingston#Student life. This group is definitely not notable (per WP:MILL, there's nothing unusual about the subject that could warrant a page and there aren't enough sources that aren't from the Queen's student newspaper to overcome that). BUT it has been discussed in some non-Queen's media ([18] [19] [20]) and I think that any verifiable information should be added to the Queen's U page. Samsmachado (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. There's plenty of precedent for doing so with student organizations. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per other editors, not notable - more than enough time has been given to find some RS here, but there is none. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:41, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Lazarus Park[edit]

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

This isn't a public park, but per http://emmalazarus.com/about.html " a privately owned garden in Carrick, PIttsburgh" emmalazarus.com is operated by Shoham Ariel Zober, the author of The Diamond Compendium. The author of this article, Shoham0211 has also written Columbia of Carrick about the mural in the "park", made contributions to Open Source (to add his writing), Carrick (Pittsburgh) to add the park to Public facilities, and a number of other articles to add links or information about the park or the mural. Curiously, we are never told where this park is, which seems somewhat unencyclopedic. No independent, reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this park seem to exist. The extant sources are either primary, (emmalazarus.com, feed-forward.net) or do not mention the subject at all (pghcitypaper.com, pittsburghartistregistry.org, poetryfoundation.org) Vexations (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Hello, these are extraordinarily relevant public things -- are they owned y the government? No, they aren't. But it was an automated bot who added this page to Pittsburgh Parks. I don't think it necessarily belongs there, but this is a Park and it is in Pittsburgh. The park is in Carrick -- on Hornaday Street -- the exact location would be updated. Do you know anything about Carrick?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoham0211 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if this was a public park it would not be notable. It might be worth having a well-sourced one sentence mention in the article on Emma Lazarus but there is no reason for a free standing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only redirect target would be Emma Lazarus and that may be WP:CHEAP. I checked and from what I found this is not a notable park on its own. I could dedicate my own private garden to Judas Priest, yet if I did not have multiple RS in the article - it would not be notable. FYI: I found it strange that none of the sources in the article are about the Emma Lazarus Park. Why then is there an article? Is this an editing trick? Adding unrelated sources so that the article appears to be supported? Please correct me if I am wrong. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment participants may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia of Carrick, a mural located at this park. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is zero online or in the way of reliable sourcing about this park. Fails notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is zero coverage out there. Appears to be a promotional effort for the park and the mural. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like others above, I looked for sourcing and found nothing. Does not meet WP:GNG. Camerafiend (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, private garden. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 9 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 L!VE TV. Sandstein 09:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Bounciest Weather[edit]

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

Non-notable TV show that ended in 1999. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to L!VE TV. I would say merge but there's not really anything in this article that's not in L!VE TV already. the wub "?!" 22:55, 7 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald L. Turchiarelli[edit]

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

County-level politician, does not clear WP:NPOL. Could not find the necessary coverage to clear WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete county "legislators" are not default notable, and the coverage is not enough to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County government is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because the person exists or existed — but this is referenced solely to a primary source list of all the past county legislators on the county government's own self-published website, not to any reliably sourced evidence of his importance for the purposes of NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he briefly held local public office. I'm sure he was respected and used the title "Hon." That's not enough for a biography. A local official could be notable, but there'es no evidence this person was. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 9 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 shows that Korean sources are available and should be incorporated into this article. (non-admin closure) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Tax Service of South Korea[edit]

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

The page is not notable and has no sources. It currently only has 1 sentence and serves no reason to be kept. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ministry of Economy and Finance (South Korea). It's almost certainly notable per GNG/NORG (see the sources in the Korean equivalent) and probably also notable per WP:COMMONSENSE as the national tax agency of a major economy, but as an unsourced substub we can't merge at the moment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable organization. Kanghuitari (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the article was expanded and sources were added on 21 August 2020 (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, there are plentiful sources in the ko.wiki article. Second, ‘Category:Revenue services’ shows that we consider countries’ national tax offices to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:30, 4 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Hennessy[edit]

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

Biography of a county-level politician, not properly referenced as to clear WP:NPOL #2. I couldn't find much to clear WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people elected to county level positions are not default notable, and we do not have enough sourcing to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County government is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because the person exists or existed — but this is referenced entirely to primary source content on the county government's own self-published website, not to any reliably sourced evidence of his importance for the purposes of NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - he might have a claim to fame due to being Erie County Clerk, a springboard to notability, but I don't see evidence. Ping me if you find anything. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 9 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Hind (newspaper)[edit]

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

I do not see any reliable sources coverage. The only link it has is a link to its official website. Gazal world (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. Simple advertising. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hold it, hold it! This article was a stub for 12 years until some anonymous 'smartass' came along in February this year and changed the text to this 'ghastly version'. This of course have to be dealt with and cleaned up, but there are absolutely no need to remove the article all together. There are plenty of sources about Jai Hind easily to be found stretching from at least 1950 and to the present days. I've done some updating to the article, removed some of the worst sentences from Februar, and added a number of sources dealing with the subject. Please feel free to edit some more in the text if it still seem to biased in some respects. If one needs to add more about the history of the newspaper, then NewsPapers Club seem to be one of the better sources for this. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The paper seems to have existed in Gujarat for about 72 years now. It is harder to find sources about newspapers in India. I suggest keeping this. -- Padavalam ► 16:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be an important paper in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat with publishing for 72 years. Seems to qualify the WP:NMEDIA criteria. - Roller26 (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on a look online, it appears to have been involved in some controversies over the past decade. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 9 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 15:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Schoolhouse[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Half of the references don't actually mention this venue, and #2 only does so in passing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have historical significance and there are some references. More references are needed. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:40, 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 13:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Judging from the text in the article it seem fairly notable, so the matter is whether more sources than those already listed can be found? How easy it is to source the avantgarde scene depends to some extent on how they chose to advertise their performances. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:27, 4 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. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THAT Agency[edit]

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

Pure advertising, cited to promotional interviews and promotional awards DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page says it has multiple issues which have not been resolved in a few years. Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable based on non-trivial sources like bizjournals San Francisco Chronicle and awards. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP there is a need to update the page, not delete. Wm335td (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason of "notable based on non-trivial sources" is not a criterion for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inc5000 awards would make this notable. I agree with nominator that some of these awards seem promotional, but Inc5000 is a well known award by a credible entity Inc._(magazine), which the page here on Wiki also mentions it. Also not sure why the creator didn't put all awards under Awards section. Simple edit, so I will revise. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:07, 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 13:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - INC list itself is notable, but that does not mean every entry is notable. Being the 3,432nd fastest growing company is a great thing to advertise, but I just don't see how that creates notability. There is no in depth discussion or profile along with the INC list, just the name and raw data. I still don't think this is a notable company. Also worth noting that it is not a curated list, in that it is based entirely on statistics and was not chosen by INC as a noteworthy company. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with El cid, while the INC list itself is notable, an entry on the list does not confer notability. None of the references I have seen meet the criteria for establishing notability. The bizjournals reference mentioned above lacks any detail about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. And the San Francisco Chronicle reference is marked as originating from PRWEB, therefore self-published and fails as an Independent reference. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:26, 9 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 15:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riera de Carme[edit]

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

I don't see any actual importance in this, it seems more like a useless tourist ad than anything. ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 22:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ping me when responding, gràcies! TheKaloo talk 22:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND as there are sources available. Mccapra (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, article probably needs some sort of translation tag as article creator appears to have copied it from their spanish wp creation (see english wp history here compared to spanish wp history here). Coolabahapple (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GEOLAND. A 27km long river is a name natural feature. Searching I do see sources exist. The article itself should be improved.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:41, 7 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 21:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WindScan[edit]

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

non-notable defunct commercial product, as per extlink. fgnievinski (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External references have been added, backing up the product and it's creation and validity. Sale of the WindScan data product continues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjsturman (talk • contribs) 03:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant coverage to meet notability. Sources given seem to only provide background, and not cover the topic directly. For example Ref 1 and Ref 4 do not mention Windscan at all. Creator of the article appears to be a single-purpose account belonging to the creator of the product.[21] --Alan Islas (talk) 16:07, 4 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Mbonye[edit]

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

Created by a suspected UPE farm. I reviewed the sources, none look especially reliable and many are not neutral toward him, mostly "look at this amazing prophet who foretold (event)" in puffy language. Nothing especially reliable came up from a BEFORE. Overall, looks like a notability fail to me. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the subject has ‘prophesized’ that this article will be kept. Mccapra (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:PROMO as a promotional article based on promotional sources that is essentially native advertising in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:30, 4 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephon Hendricks[edit]

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

paid for spam about a non notable author/musician/"traveler" sourced exclusively to black hat seo sites. Praxidicae (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page was initially created by a new editor User:Hesevie Wers with little experience on 19th of August 2020, "Praxidicae" tagged it for Speedy "G11" on the 20th of August. But User:Bradv removed the "G11" tag saying it is "not a G11; will move to draft so someone can check the sources". See page history. I came along today, 3rd September, checked the references, removed inappropriate ones and fixed the formatting in line with what User:Bradv suggested. I also toned down the page to suit WP:NPOV. I also updated the categories. Then moved the draft back to Mainspace. I am surprised to see it tagged for AFD by "Praxidicae" again.

I spent time to check each of the references while fixing them. Many of them are from news-related sources. So, I believe the topic meets WP:NACTOR, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Hoping to hear from other editors. Thanks.Estarosmārṭ (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a play by play of the history, anyone can see it. However, if you reviewed the sources, you'd be able to identify that more than half of them are black hat SEO spam sources and not independent coverage as required for notability. You shouldn't be "reviewing" drafts. Further, your inability to distinguish between deletion methods, specifically CSD and AFD lead me to believe you lack the experience to be deciding these things anyway, since I've never once sent this to AFD until today. Praxidicae (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a look through the sources shows this subject simply does not meet our standards for inclusion. The article is sourced primarily to websites that will write about anyone for the right fee, and none of the content used to write this article has been subjected to any editorial oversight. I was hoping when I draftified it that someone would find some better sources, but those sources simply do not exist. – bradv🍁 14:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brad V. 2001:569:74D2:A800:6C73:D515:A1D6:AD61 (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nearly all of the references here are to WordPress blogs rather than reliable sources — we require coverage in real media, not just any random blog that exists, to deem a person notable. In addition, I've already had to remove a couple of other sources from the article — both of his books were referenced solely to their presence on Amazon.com (which is not notability-making sourcing for a writer, as we require media coverage about the books, not just the books metaverifying their own existence on an online bookstore, to deem a person notable as a writer), and one source literally just briefly namechecked his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article that was not about him, and thus wasn't support for his notability either. The few sources left that are from real media are not sufficient coverage to get him over WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG. As always, we're looking for independent, externally validated verification of his importance, such as noteworthy literary or music awards and/or independent critical analysis of his work's creative significance, not just verification that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I blocked the author for this. MER-C 09:40, 6 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucio Manca[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Part of a promotional walled garden surrounding the repeatedly deleted Csaba Zvekan. Not notable. Sourced to pr. Redlinked band are equally non notable parts of the walled garden. Member of multiple non notable bands does not make one notable. Solo work lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable musician. Created by Csabi, who created a series of COI articles on Csaba Zvekan, Exorcism, Raven Lord and Garry King. None of these bands / musicians were notable and all of them were deleted because of lack of notability. Lucio is nowhere close to notability either. Despite being Italian he doesn't have a page on itwiki, just on phwiki and egwiki, and they aren't big on sources either. No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator and previous voter. The overload of red links in the article should tell you something. The musician's deepest coverage is a few brief mentions about being present in articles about one or two of his bands, and even those are rare. He was indeed "endorsed" by Ibanez, but that is a business arrangement rather than an item of notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG generally due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Al the red links are a bad sign. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 9 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SWAG (silver, wine, art and gold)[edit]

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

Neologism, that appeared to only be documented during a small window (2011-12) so not have lasting impact -- was prodded, but PROD remover claimed newer use on commercial goods -- doesn't support its notability. Sadads (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a backcronym neologism that does not have widespread backing in a variety of sources to show actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:GNG, and per Johnpacklambert. Other than the two or three sources, it hasn't been widely used. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. (I wrote the article.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 10 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) Empire AS ^Talk! 05:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lockdown Ki Love Story[edit]

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

The series is not even premiered yet. Clearly fails WP:GNG, all the refs are only from Times of India, which has a history of including promotional articles. Zoodino (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:FFILM QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 01:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The series is to premiere coming Monday (31/08/2020). So other references would be available and cited soon. Instead of deleting, it could be moved to draft and can be moved to article once notability is met.Noobie anonymous (talk)
Delete: Non-reliability of sources, no notability as well. Any source doesn't confirm that it will premiere on Monday. Empire AS ^Talk! 08:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources to prove notability, case of WP:TOOSOON, it should have stayed in draft, until released. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added two reliable sources, other than Times of India which confirms its premiere date as 31/08/2020, one of which from Republic World is - [22] which cites the premiere date. I hope this makes it for minimum notability.Noobie anonymous (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noobie anonymous, The source you provided is dead. Thanx. Empire AS ^Talk! 06:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Empire AS No it is not dead. I checked it now and it's still available.Noobie anonymous (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Noobie anonymous, But when I open this source I see "Access to www.republicworld.com was denied. You don't have authorization to view this page." Therefore, it might have problems like to be viewable only in India. Empire AS ^Talk! 06:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Empire AS and Noobie anonymous I have added the archived ref using wayback machine, so as users outside India can also access. Zoodino (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Link works for me outside of India. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Cyphoidbomb, only archived link works for me. Are you seeing non-archived link outside India too? Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 01:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @Empire AS: Hey there, this link works for me outside of India, and I've tried it via VPN connections to about half a dozen countries and it seems to work. Also tried TOR, and it works. Also tried two non-TOR browsers. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Cyphoidbomb, I don't use VPN, perhaps due to that it isn't working. However, archived link works on Chrome properly. Thankx. Empire AS ^Talk! 01:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @Empire AS: I tried it without a VPN in my area, so it has nothing to do with VPNs, and TOR isn't a VPN. Whatever is preventing you from accessing the site might have something to do with your browser, extensions, router rules, DNS settings, etc. There's one site often used as a reference in early articles about Indian films (I can't remember what it is) and I always get block notices, but that's because my aggressive browser adblock software doesn't want me to access it. But if I use a different browser, I can access it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Cyphoidbomb, Now, I understood. I use Chrome and I've blocked ads in it. Perhaps that was a reason due to it was unable to open this site. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 02:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- for those citing toosoon, the premiere date is scheduled to happen before this AfD resolves. Assuming it does indeed premiere as scheduled, will that affect your response. matt91486 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I have further improved the contents of the article with new sources Bollywood Hungama and India Today.Noobie anonymous (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- With the series premiered on 31 August 2020 as cited, the article is improved further with new contents and references along with addition of the title card of the series satisfying the minimum notability, I think this deletion discussion can be closed.Noobie anonymous (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This series premiered last night so obviously WP:TOOSOON doesn't apply anymore and sources have also been added. Basically, this entire discussion has been rendered pointless. Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as stated above, series has now debuted, most of the arguments for deletion made were TOOSOON. matt91486 (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As noted by several !voters, the series has debuted while the AFD is open, and it would benefit from further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the article has some promotional sources in it, however, now it looks notable due to some new references after premiering. Empire AS ^Talk! 13:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Santosh L (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Santoshsatvik, The series has been premiered on 31 August 2020. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 13:06, 11 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 15:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianna So[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:NACTOR; her most well-known role is in a YouTube series and her other roles appear to be fairly small parts. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. This was moved to draftspace for development and then moved back to mainspace without much in the way of improvement. A redirect in draftspace prevented return. Eagleash (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eagleash: It actually wasn't the redirect that prompted me to take it to AfD; typically if I catch a unilateral move to mainspace after a page has been draftified at least once, I send it to AfD rather than draftifying a second time. It's better to just take care of the problem via discussion rather than a move war; if the creator wants to actually work on expanding the article to be mainspace worthy, they can easily come here and argue for it to be kept or draftified for further development. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nathan2055: I thought about bringing it here myself but didn't really have the time and decided it was better, as is my wont, for the creator to be given the opportunity to develop it as a draft; with some 'mentoring', including the advice that it will likely be deleted if it is again moved out of process. Eagleash (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is cleaned up a bit, a few reliable sources are added there. The article is good enough to meet WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 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 11:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. I note there are many possible sources. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 9 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Director-General of Presidential Media in Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. There is not a suitable merge target. President’s Media Division of Sri Lanka is redlinked in this article, but it does not appear to pass notability either. There is a list item for the division in Presidential Secretariat. None of the divisions there have stand alone articles for the division or articles for their Directors. // Timothy :: talk 11:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Not independently notable. Mccapra (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NORG - lacks any secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. It's entirely unclear what this job entails. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 9 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 Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Jha[edit]

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

BLP of a subject who is the general secretary of the Rastriya Janata Party Nepal, a relatively small political party. Only relevant guidelines seem to be WP:NPOL—which he does not meet, as he is a party official, not an elected legislator—and WP:BASIC, which I cannot establish either. [23] has some mentions of him, and the references in the article that aren't dead have some passing mentions, but I'm not seeing sustained coverage. I suggest either an outright delete or a delete-and-redirect to Rastriya Janata Party Nepal. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable political functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - prominent actor in national politics, and at one point leader of militant group that negotiated a peace settlement with the national government. See [24], [25], [26], [27], etc. --Soman (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha which seems to contain a few verifiable/verified claims about his activities. Rastriya Janata Party Nepal is gone, and it's not clear what position, if any, he holds in the successor People's Socialist Party, Nepal. IIRC, his militant group came about by further splintering of a former splinter group which was thought to have a few hundred men to begin with. I find it unlikely that he would have received significant coverage for any of the positions he has held. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NPOL, at least at this time. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, per WP:CHEAP. I recall that we have sometimes "redistricted" party officers to the party article. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 9 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Gulubayli[edit]

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

23 year old son of notable person, WP:NOTINHERITED. Coverage is limited to the context of his father and short gossip entries in media. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not inherited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: absolutely non-notable, just because of important father he gets a bit of gossip coverage in the press. - Roller26 (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards, WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTINHERITED. He's a very new lawyer and 23-year-old male debutante. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 9 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 15:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Iqbal Memon[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL. Nothing that is WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 11:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable low level beaurecrat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absolute lie. An Officer of PAS and of the Senior rank of Grade-21 is not low level! There are articles on bureaucrats who are much more junior to him and in far inferior services. There was a massive page on this individual on Wikipedia. Individual is often seen on media, despite not being a politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isupporttrees (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even assuming, arguendo, that he's an important civil servant, there's little evidence by way of significant coverage in reliable sources. He's been featured in zero newspaper articles other than online blogs. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 9 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 Merged to C/o The Bartons during the discussion; this seems to be rolling in line with the consensus so I won't interfere with it. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Harkin[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PEOPLE / WP:NACTOR. Before showed mentions, promos, cast listings etc, but not WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 10:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 10:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 10:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, I'm this article's original author so naturally I'd vote for Keep or I wouldn't have gone through the trouble of writing it, right? However I honestly believe this should be kept: I think it's about as in-depth as one can get without violating privacy (as she's not currently a celebrity of sorts) on an actress that made an impact on children's TV outside of the USA but has done nothing "notably" (as far as the Wikipedia guidelines are concerned) after that. I listed her work in theatre but that was edited away (also not 'noteable' as I referred to it as amateur theatre; I'm currently trying to cite a source that says it was semi-professional).

So, honest request for feedback here, not a flame: what would you consider in-depth enough to make this qualify?

Sjokhazard :: talk 13:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Edit to the above': cite found (I believe) by only listing theatrical productions classified as "Pro-Am" (and not "Amateur") by AusStage; removed the line about her career in amateur theatre as it indeed does not add do notability.

Question to the more experienced editors here: I am a newbie (I understand I'm not to be bitten... :)) and am struggling to find a way to get this information on Olivia Harkin on Wikipedia (as she is mentioned in an article that appear to be notable). Is creating a permastub a good idea? Should I include the information from this entry into the page that is considered notable?

--Sjokhazard (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hi Sjokhazard, first don't worry this happens a lot. I'd be happy to try and help and change my vote to keep if you can find sources. Otherwise you can request it be moved to your Drafts, which I would also support. The guidelines you should read are WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. These tell you how to meet the requirements.

What Wikipedia is looking for is basically two articles, by publications that are completely independent and non-promotional that cover the actress (not the productions or shows) directly and in depth. Examples would be two newspaper or magazine articles about the person (not interviews, but they can contain short parts that are quotes) and their career. They don't need to solely be about the actress alone, but they need to discuss her work in-depth and directly, not just the fact that she was part of certain shows. Blogs don't count and neither do sites that produce articles that are promotions. A source where an editor reviews and vets the material. Where actors get stuck a lot of the time is the articles are mainly about the show they are in and don't have a significant amount of information about the actress or the material is an interview or something else intended to promote someone or something, rather than an independent source.

It's completely unnecessary to include private information and this wouldn't in anyway help notability. Since this is a child, I believe it's especially important to protect their privacy.

I'd be happy (along with anyone else here to look at any sources and tell you what I think. The decision is no one person's; its a group consensus.

You mention the amateur theater, remember its not sources primarily about the production, you're looking for but articles primarily about the actress. If she received significant coverage about her directly and in-depth by a professional journalist / publication, that is not promotional, for her work in amateur theater, this can be used.

One other very important item. It appears you may (I could be wrong) be a friend, associate or working in some way on behalf of this person (paid or unpaid). If that's true, it's not a problem, but you do need to declare it on your userpage (not declaring it is a huge problem). Other editors can then help you make sure the article is well-sourced and written in a neutral point of view. It's important to remember this is an encyclopedia, not a social media platform or a promotional website.

This can be a lot for younger actors to find, for a lot of them, its just too soon and in a few years they will have plenty of sources.

I'd leave any further questions or sources here for others to comment on but you're free to post on my talk page as well. I will help as much as I can. I'm sure this is a very talented young person with a bright future.

Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk 14:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi TimothyBlue, thank you for the in depth feedback; I appreciate that a lot! To be very clear about the last bit: I don't know her personally and am not working for her (paid or unpaid). All mentions about her work are from public resources (AustLit and AusStage, IMDb and a few books about Australian TV I own). She's also not a child anymore (she was born in the 1970's, but so far she did her most public acting work when she was a child). Just thought I'd make that clear to prevent any misunderstanding.

The reason I'm so vocal about this article is that it's part of a series of articles I had planned to write after a did research on a show Olivia Harkin was in for the Dutch Wikipedia; I noticed the English edition didn't have an entry for her so I decided to write one. The Dutch edition of Wikipedia doesn't have the same guidelines for articles as the English one has, so it's a bit confusing at times.

Two of the articles (including this one) have been marked AfD so far, so I guess a small part of my vocality is frustration.

But I've read the guidelines you've linked to and I agree that this article doesn't hold up. So I'd be happy with it being moved to drafts and I'll see if I can find two published independant, non promotional articles about her.

Best wishes from Nijmegen, The Netherlands! Sjokhazard (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer: I would support moving this to Drafts if the creator says they would like more time to develop the article. // Timothy :: talk 14:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify - After a BEFORE search I could not find any significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources WP:RS to verify notability. Does not pass criteria for GNG, NACTOR, ANYBIO nor BASIC at this time. Netherzone (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough credits to be notable for NACTOR nor are there reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to C/o The Bartons where she has a significant role. Reasonable search term. Not enough for a stand alone article. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to C/o The Bartons is acceptable for me as well. Preferable to deletion. Sjokhazard (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything new as suggested. Arguably, because she was in "all twelve episodes" of a TV show, she might be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with Bearian; best option proposed yet. I'll execute the merge if no one opposes; will have to look into how to do that (and the redirect from this to C/o The Bartons) as I've never done it before, so bear with me for the day. Sjokhazard (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge executed Now Olivia Harkin redirects to C/o The Bartons#Olivia Harkin, which is a new section containing most of the original content of Olivia Harkin (had to edit it a bit for it to make sense and to make it fit into the layout of C/o The Bartons). Sjokhazard (talk) 06:09, 11 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social Choice and Welfare Prize[edit]

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

Non-notable award. The cited sources are all press releases, the awarding body has no article, neither do most of the awardees, and Google turns up nothing compelling. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No SIGCOV to pass GNG. // Timothy :: talk 21:26, 11 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.

Siding (disambiguation)[edit]

The result was Moot with the consensus to disambiguate the base title. Sceptre (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary, better handled with hatnotes on each of the entires so save reader going here when they want the other article. MB 19:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MB 19:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete there are other search terms with siding in the title such as Siding 16 and Siding 18, Siding, Walhalla line if we add these the disambiguation page could should remain. There is also another Siding Spring disambiguation page. Regarding this page: WP:D states: It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek. At the moment the disambiguation page is not needed since there readers will not be confused by the single term Siding. Other terms such as Aluminum siding already redirect to siding. Lightburst (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if the page can be expanded. Among the articles with Siding in their title, there's only Siding, Walhalla line, but the appearance that the place is called Siding may be an artefact of presentation here. Next, perusing a dictionary, I can see that siding variously refers to slope (in Australian usage), to the width of pieces of timber (in boatbuilding), a type of rail stop (in South Africa), or a place on a canal where boats can pass each other. I would assume that at least some of these things would be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: You could try expanding the list. Lightburst (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to nominate Siding, Walhalla line for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the time of this comment, this disambiguation page is not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Partial title matches are easily found using Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are only two articles being disambiguated, with hatnotes already in each (and a primary article allocated), hence I don't see why this is needed, or how anyone would even end up on this page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why didn't I think of that first? Before doing anything else in cases like this, the question to be asked is "Is there a primary topic here?". Because if there isn't, then the dab page will have to be moved to the base title, no matter how many or how few entries it's got. The fact that a certain article happens to be occupying the base title does not always mean that it should be there. I think there's an obvious absence of a primary topic here, and I've started a discussion at Talk:Siding#Requested move 31 August 2020. – Uanfala (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move the disambiguation page to the base name (per the move request). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 3 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. Consensus is 'delete'. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krausser–Samwer–Zaccone equation[edit]

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

Fails the notability criterion. A notability tag had been added in the end of July [28], and was removed in the middle of August [29] by an editor who added another paper of the same authors (together with one more coauthor). That's not enough to establish notability. More worryingly, this new reference was a reply to a comment claiming that the equation in question is incorrect [30].

Moreover, the article content consists only of the equation: it is also present in Viscosity, which seems to me the correct place to mention this equation, if at all.

Another problem is that there's no reliable sourcing naming the equation as "Krausser–Samwer–Zaccone equation". This name seems to be solely the creation of User:Michal Borkovec and User:Ben Mandelson, who added it all over Wikipedia, including Viscosity, Viscous liquid, Liquid metal, Fragility, and Alessio Zaccone. This makes me suspect WP:COI, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:SOCK. Tercer (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The equation has been published in a notable scientific journal (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, PNAS) and has received many citations since 2015. Also it has been used by different authors in the citing papers. Furthermore, this is currently the only equation of viscosity which is able to relate viscosity to intermolecular/interatomic interaction parameters and microstructure, differently from previous approaches (e.g. Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation) which are just empirical relations. If other such equations exist, they should be named here in this discussion. It is not true that this name is solely the creation of User:Michal Borkovec and User:Ben Mandelson, since other editors participated in the creation/editing process. The fact that some users added it in other pages does not represent a reason to call for its deletion. Those users made edits and contributions to a number of very different Wikipedia pages. Finally, User:Tercer should declare their competence in the area of liquid state theory and classical condensed matter physics, if any. —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It is very easy to verify that the name in Wikipedia is solely the creation of User:Michal Borkovec and User:Ben Mandelson. In Viscosity, it was added by Ben Mandelson [31]. In Viscous liquid, it was added by Ben Mandelson and Michal Borkovec [32]. In Liquid metal, it was added by Ben Mandelson [33]. In Fragility, it was added by Ben Mandelson and Michal Borkovec [34]. In Alessio Zaccone, it was added by Michal Borkovec at page creation. In Krausser–Samwer–Zaccone equation itself, also by Michal Borkovec at page creation. Editors here have no business in naming equations, they should report the name used in reliable sources.

The equation has indeed been published in a serious journal and cited many times, 55 according to Google Scholar [35]. This is enough to include the equation in Viscosity, but not enough for a standalone article. For that we need coverage in the lay media, not in journal articles only. Heck, I have myself several papers with more than 55 citations, I'm not going to create Wikipedia articles about them!

Please answer if you are the same person editing under the accounts of User:Michal Borkovec, User:Ben Mandelson, and User:Ronny Lifshitz. Note that this is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Tercer (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that not all articles with 55 citations should be featured in Wikipedia! I argue, however, that this 2015 result would deserve a page on its own for the reasons mentioned above. This is a new equation and compared to previous approaches (e.g. the Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation) it stands out as a microscopic approach. If you know of any other such approaches, they would also deserve a page on Wikipedia, but I don't think there are any available in the scientific literature.

Btw, the same arguments for deletion brought up by User:Tercer should then apply also to the article Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation, which was created by User:Ben Mandelson. The Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation was developed in the 1920s. Is User:Tercer implying that User:Ben Mandelson is trying to do self-promotion for a result that was proposed in the 1920s? Obviously not, User:Ben Mandelson is simply an expert who is (without any reward) enriching Wikipedia with competent contributions based solely on the published peer-reviewed scientific literature. Of course, compared to the Krausser-Samwer-Zaccone equation, the Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation has been used much more, but that's obvious because it was developed 100 years ago whereas the Krausser-Samwer-Zaccone equation was developed in 2015. Should then only results that are 100 years old be worth of a Wikipedia article? I leave the answer to the readers of this discussion thread...

I also think that my own papers are the best thing since sliced bread. That's not the question. The question is whether there are reliable sources stating that this result is the best thing since sliced bread. The Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation is a good comparison: a Google search of "Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann equation" gives me immediately several reliable sources stating that the equation is important, and that it is in fact named so. A Google search of "Krausser–Samwer–Zaccone equation", on the other hand, doesn't give me any result outside Wikipedia, which is further evidence that this name is in fact solely created by you. Tercer (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This equation has no coverage in GScholar or GBooks under this name, so the title is a neologism. Whatever it is called, there are no independent secondary sources discussing this model/equation in depth, so there are no reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense WP:RS and the topic fails notability criteria per WP:GNG. Because the title has no support in the literature, even a redirect to the viscosity section is unwarranted. Hence, delete. When the equation gets in depth discussions in multiple secondary sources like published review articles or books, written by authors independent of the creators, then an article could be considered. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and Mark viking. I looked into this page shortly after it was created and decided that it was pushing a neologism for a topic that didn't have enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. At the time, I didn't have the energy to start an AfD (and the matter did not seem very pressing), but now that somebody else has, I'll chime in with my opinion. Age is a red herring; what matters is coverage in secondary and tertiary sources establishing that the topic is significant and that the scientific community has given it a standardized name. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Some citations but not yet a standardised name. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Expunge the name from other articles as well.--Srleffler (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We can't continue to have a page for a neologism coined here on Wikipedia. I think the content might be rescuable, but I note that one of the highest cited papers citing the PNAS article is a Nature article - https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13733 - that, like the article Tercer pointed out, doesn't seem too impressed by the approach. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NEO. I agree with Chalst; considering the citations, contents of the research and subsequent academic coverage may be included on relevant articles within the limits of WP:UNDUE. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the name for WP:OR, even for naming things. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify - while potentially important, and fascinating to this science teacher, this is still original research, and it would need to be cited in a textbook or professional development seminar, before we would publish it here. Sorry, but it's still too soon. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 9 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 09:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Westman (writer)[edit]

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

Even though the subject seems to have written many books (look at sv version), I failed to find significant coverage in IRS. Therefore he fails WP:GNG. If someone who speak Swedish manages to find reliable info on him, I will gladly withdraw my nomination. Less Unless (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have improved the article. This writer passes WP:GNG. Sources looks ok now as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: References are OK using Google Translate, except the first link wants me to sign in and the last reference fails to load. For something retrieved on August 27, I am a little surprised. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of coverage in Swedish for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 4 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. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stelzer[edit]

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

Seeking consensus on this one. The article claims (without substantial sourcing) that he is a pioneer of the Ross procedure, but even his profile at Mount Sinai Hospital ([36]) doesn't go so far as this article does, and it's not clear to me whether his being a pioneer of the Ross procedure—which I was not able to verify—would make him notable. WP:NPROF/WP:NAUTHOR seem like possible SNGs, given that he has co-authored a number of widely cited papers (e.g., [37] in NEJM). Seems like he's a fairly well-respected cardiothoracic surgeon, but I'm not sure if he passes the relevant standards. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to pass GNG, and nothing suggests that he passes any academic notablity guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Medicine is a high-citation field but he has a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. His highly cited articles have an extremely larger number of coauthors, and he is middle author in a field where that matters. By the time you get down to papers with a reasonable number of coauthors and/or where he is lead/trailing author, the citation counts are around 100. In a high citation field, that looks pretty borderline for WP:NPROF C1. Meanwhile, there is tension with WP:TNT: the article is fairly promotional in tone. I couldn't find any independent source that considers him to be the top world expert in the Ross procedure. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:02, 6 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. A redirect can be created if desired -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilpertsau-Weisenbach compact overhead line[edit]

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

~~Contrary to what the article claims (translated from German), this is not a 1000km long line, but~~ a 1km long line. Total lack of sourcing, and nothing reliable and significant could be found, so not notable. Fram (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although the article has been correctly translated from German 1,326 km to English 1.326 km. (which is 1,326 meters, or 1.326 meters if you are German. Decimal separator differences are annoying). Back to the point: All sources I could find were personal websites of electrical engineering geeks. Not good enough. —Kusma (t·c) 13:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh, you're right, I misread this. I've struck that part. Fram (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kind of charming in its geekiness, but I think this is the kind of parochial mini-topic that deWP is much more happy with than we are. Can't sustain an article. And not a relevant search term either, I suspect, although if one is desired, it should got to Overhead_power_line#Compact_transmission_lines (where it is listed as an example). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:57, 9 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 09:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facility 4101, Tower 93[edit]

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

Unsourced article, translation of de:Anlage 4101, Mast 93. Looking for either title gives no results in reliable sources, so this tower seems to lack notability. Fram (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, as per nomination, no reference, and since the observation tower has gone, the tower really lacks notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per lack of sourcing. "Aussichtsturm Bleibtreusee" is a better search term, but still doesn't give us much. This is the best I found, but I haven't found any discussion of the closure. Would expect local newspaper coverage to exist, though. —Kusma (t·c) 14:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No deletion: this structure was according to all available information the only (active) electricity pylon, which was equipped with an observation deck. A search using https://www.google.de/search?q=observation+deck+electricity+pylon&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjm4eC0ys3rAhVLgaQKHS0rBZwQ2-cCegQIABAA&bih=750&biw=1519 gave only this tower as result. The tower is therefore remarkable, as it shows that even in a country with strict laws as Germany, it is not against the law to realize an electricity pylon with observation deck. Many people, even engineers believe, that this may be against the law for reasons of electrical safety.

It is a good question, why there are not many pages containing this object. Perhaps the people in the area of Brühl were not aware of its unity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:1F20:D795:7C4D:FF49:7DA0:155D (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reliable sources that make this claim of uniqueness or discuss this safety issue? —Kusma (t·c) 20:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning unity: can you give an other example for an electricity pylon, which is or which was equipped with a public observation deck? I would look forward to get knowledge of further objects of this kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:1F20:D795:F4F8:1C48:F1A1:D00B (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being unique and being notable aren't the same thing. I can paint a unique picture, that doesn't automatically make it a worthwhile encyclopedia topic. Indeed if you can find no signficant information on it, it tends to suggest that no one else in the world finds it's uniqueness worthy of note. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion structures, which have or had an observation deck are worth of note, as these objects are or were tourist attractions and known to many people. Not delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:1F20:D739:2DDA:73C7:DB16:5688 (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion (or my opinion) on what people should find of note, is not how we determine it, we look to the evidence that people did actually find it of note, that's done by looking to having reliable sources. If it's of general interest/note then writers will have researched and written about it (or made films). If it's a tourist attraction, then travel writers will have visited and written about it. Do you have any such sources? --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It exists, but it doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG requirement. Feel free to ping me if good arguments are presented, so far all I see above is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES/WP:GOOGLEHITS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. The single source in the article is to something that doesn't look like a WP:RS. Even if there were good sources, there are enough problems with the English that it's hard to understand what the text is saying. For example, there's a photo caption that talks about "an inverted v". Looking at the photo, I can't tell what that means. Another caption talks about a "Concrete olate". Is that a typo for "Concrete plate"? Maybe. Moving this to draft space would give the author time to find better sources and work on the English, but my gut feeling is this is just not notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 7 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 07:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iron Man supporting characters[edit]

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

Another list of characters associated with Iron Man, I guess. Who decides who is supporting or not? Is this just for his allies? Perhaps it could survive if it was merged with a List of Iron Man enemies into a List of Iron Man characters, given the popularity of the franchise, I can imagine there would be sources for this. But I don't think we need two lists of Iron Man related characters, this at least one list too many. Oh, all referenced to secondary / in-universe fan sources (a fan wiki, not sure if it is a fork of WIkipedia, fandom or stand-alone). PS. The entire Category:Lists of supporting characters in comics needs a cleanup, perhaps as easy as renaming those articles by removing the word 'supporting' from their title and including the main character and his/her versions in it. But overall those list suffer from few sources, particularly ones that make it clear that character X is primarily associated with superhero Y. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination doesn't provide a reason to delete; just some rambling ideas for development contrary to WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:IGNORINGATD. The topic passes WP:LISTN – see the Iron Manual for example. The policy WP:ATD applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a number of reasons, but I think the issues raised by Andrew🐉 are enough to keep this article until further reasoning is given by the proposer. Timmccloud (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to List of Iron Man characters Is there a reason this nomination was filed at WP:AFD, instead of the talk page, Wikiproject, Requested Moves, or anywhere more pertinent? Per WP:DELREASON, WP:ATD, WP:NOTNOTABLE, WP:SUSC, and a few others, deletion is not the go-to place for whenever you have a general issue or aren't happy with the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NEXIST, WP:RUBBISH, WP:NOEFFORT, etc). WP:AFD is the last resort for when you are absolutely sure it meets the criteria of DELREASON. That's about it. Dark knight 2149 18:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments, and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article in its current state is absolutely deficient. At a minimum, the characters should have the basic real-world information of who created them, and when. But this can be fixed, as others have said, and can be handled through talk page conversations and requesting a merge. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or merge as a List of Iron Man characters would be a normal practice on Wikipedia. The article does need work but that's part of normal editing. Archrogue (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:ATD as there was no reason given to merit total deletion; but move to List of Iron Man characters. Now List of Iron Man enemies I can get behind deleting for non-notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:21, 9 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 07:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters[edit]

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

This seem to fail WP:LISTN with primary references only. BEFORE does not show anything helpful, worse - who decides who is a "supporting character"? Supporting what? This list includes both allies and enemiess, it is effectively a List of Luke Cage and Iron First minor characters? Or actually, maybe this intended to be a List of Luke Cage and Iron First characters in general? And then there is the issue of why this page is limited to just those two characters, and on the otherhand, why shouldn't it be split into one for each? Lot's of ORish fancruft with this one. Still, needs proper references if this is to be salvaged after a rename. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can tell you that the reason this page is "limited to just these characters" is due to Power Man and Iron Fist and variations of that series, which teamed them up as a duo, and introduced supporting characters for the duo. BD2412 T 14:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:DELREASON, WP:NOTCLEANUP, and the reasons outline at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iron Man supporting characters. This is not an AFD issue and it honestly feels like the nominator is just looking for stuff to nominate. Dark knight 2149 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments, and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is similar to the current discussion on List of Iron Man supporting characters. This kind of "list of characters" page is usually the merge target when a character's article is deleted through AfD. Deleting the list is not good practice. The nominator is suggesting changes to the title and content, or a possible merge. That discussion and work should be done through talk page discussions and/or a proposed merge, not at AfD. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nominator seems to be on an indiscriminate and bad faith prompted deletion spree on similar pages. I think all their deletions should be closed honestly as they have likely done no actual BEFORE.★Trekker (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename would we still be having this discussion if this were List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist characters? It's common for most series to have lists of characters, and everything else can be resolved through editing. Archrogue (talk) 19:38, 6 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 07:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Terrizzi[edit]

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

Former collegiate and NFL quarterback, but fails WP:NGRIDIRON notability guideline as he was cut from the San Francisco 49ers and didn't play in any games as a professional. The remaining claims are around a law degree and practice, but lack WP:RS citations to establish notability. Article has been tagged for 9 years and seems to have been created by a SPA. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article as it existed pre-AfD was in poor shape with some material that can likely be viewed as promotional. I have edited the article to render it more neutral and have also added some sourcing. That said, WP:NGRIDIRON is an inclusionary standard rather than an exlusionary one. Football players can still qualify under WP:GNG. Here, Terrizzi was a starting quarterback for a Power Five program and received GNG-level coverage. Examples include: this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per the sources from Cbl62. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As expanded, the article provides the reliable and verifiable sources needed to meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. The article should probably be retitled to Mike Terrizzi per WP:COMMONNAME, as that appears to be the name he was known as during his football career. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Cbl62. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've looked over Cbl's four sources, and they all look like independent significant coverage. Most Power 5 conference full-time starting quarterbacks get GNG coverage, and this guy isn't an exception. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep generally big-ten starting quarterbacks generate enough press to surpass WP:GNG. Board membership in several football organizations also speak to WP:IMPACT. Mix that all together and it seems to me that several notability measures are met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:12, 8 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 15:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kadhayile Nayika[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources except for Sify. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 00:34, 10 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 07:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ezham Suryan[edit]

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

Couldn't find a single review/reliable sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 00:34, 10 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 07:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Sale (2013 film)[edit]

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

Couldn't find a single review/reliable sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nominator, no reliable sources are available. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another one that fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 10:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 00:34, 10 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 07:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shravanthi Sainath[edit]

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

Lacks enough information to establish WP:GNG. The entire article revolves around the actress' one notable role in Life of Pi. A minor role in one movie is WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article. Of the two other films listed, one is a cameo and the other film was delayed from its original early 2019 release and no one has heard of it since then. Sunshine1191 (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree, WP:TOOSOON applies; most of the references are primary and some are hot gossip, like this. Two links are dead. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: She has worked in two films playing small roles and the third one is yet to come out. Its a clear case of WP:TOOSOON and redirect to Life of Pi (film) would be appropriate until the notability is established as she is majorly known for portraying Pi's girlfriend in the film and often referred to as Life of Pi actress by Indian media.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 5 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 07:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio, California[edit]

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

Durham lists a San Antonio Creek in Marin but nothing else. No other hits explaining what San Antonio was. Current map shows location to be site of large dairy farm. No indications of notability Glendoremus (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is another NOAA chart copying screwup, except that in this case the mistake is much more obvious because there's nothing wrong on the chart, which shows "San Antonio Creek" in the appropriate italic lettering along the upper left edge. Nothing shows up on topos until the name is copied in from GNIS, except for a cluster of buildings. Aerials from the 1950s show many of the same barns and other buildings as show up presently. Another prime example of why just copying names from map to map is a bad idea, especially if you do a poor job of it. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 4 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 07:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sacramento Landing, California[edit]

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

Durham calls it a locality. Another source says it was a wharf serving nearby ranches. No indication it was a community and nothings to indicate notability. Glendoremus (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy delete Mass-produced junk made with contempt for WP:N and WP:V. Reywas92^Talk 18:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's substantial coverage in this study that indicates it was a Coast Miwok settlement. At very least it's deserving of a paragraph in Point Reyes National Seashore. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, this does not say Sacramento Landing itself was a Coast Miwok settlement. It says it was a small housing development where a number of Coast Miwok descendents lived. Yes, the National Seashore has a lot of history described in this document, including several sites of interest on the peninsula, almost none of which are in its article. It needs a history section that could include many of them, but this article is not warranted. Reywas92^Talk 05:39, 6 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) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Tailor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources for this actress. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW KEEP – you click "Google" on this page and there's plenty of sources, so what are you talking about? —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acting resume meets WP:ENT. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NACTOR with a number of prominent roles in notable productions so should be included in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you kindly add reliable sources to prove notability.TamilMirchi (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:NACTOR: main role for several seasons on The Magicians (American TV series) - [38] [39] -, supporting cast member on Murder in the First (TV series) season 2, and was in Cam2Cam - [40]. If WP:NACTOR doesn't do it for ya (which it technically should because per WP:SNG, "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article"), there's these sources which help to meet WP:GNG in addition to media coverage for Tailor's work on The Magicians: [41] [42] and [43] (the stuff before the interview, bc interviews don't count towards GNG). Samsmachado (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Samsmachado's comments. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. While her TV show is not on one of the major networks, she has a lead role in a SyFy series, and there's lots of sources on the Interwebs. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 9 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) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Mayor of Zalamea (1920 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, only mentioned in passing mentions in a few books Prisencolin (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely notable film referred to in multiple scholarly works. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mccapra Donaldd23 (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable academic sources identified above. Most silent films are notable because there were fewer of them and they have historical interest coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above keepers. The corresponding article at the German Wikipedia gives 1 which could be added to the article by a German-reading Wikipedian. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Notable silent film from Weimar Germany. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:34, 9 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 07:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Keenan[edit]

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

Apparent failure of WP:V and WP:NARTIST. The lone source I could find was [44] (PDF p. 17), which does not look reliable. The other sources cited in this article do not appear reliable either. Her work has been sold at auction a number of times, but beyond that I can verify very little of the content in this article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing-wise, half the article sources are from auction houses. An independent search for sources turns up many name checks, which were largely for doing commercial and contract work (trophies, copies of sculptures, Royal Doulton China comissions and so on). She does not seem to have generated much of any independent critical press. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:28, 3 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 07:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Theobalds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

He appears to have been in several bands, but that does not seem to have garnered write-ups from WP:RS more than to say he was in the bands. This was the only RS with any weight I could find. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears that of the multiple bands he was in we only now have an article on one, so the keep vote at the earlier discussion is no longer valid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:MUSICBIO might allow someone to have an article if they have been in multiple notable bands, but most of this guy's bands are not notable, as evidenced by all the red links. His tenures in a few notable bands were short-lived at best, and as the nominator found, his only decent media notice was for leaving one of them for a flimsy reason. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interestingly, the article does not say that Theobalds is also an actor with some bit parts after he left music, but those are also minimal. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - More sources needed to meet WP:GNG Maltuguom (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akercocke. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 9 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 09:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerilyn Lee Brandelius[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)

GNG fail, per the discussion of notability on the talk page. Several editors have looked and been unable to find SIGCOV. The subject has recently died, although we cannot find a good source for this. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect her book, The Grateful Dead Family Album, is notable, which would give us a reasonable merge target if this page isn't kept. pburka (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the book The Grateful Dead Family Album is notable, then this isn't at all apparent from the article in its present state. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The book isn't the topic under discussion, but it was the subject of at least one substantial, academic book review ([45]) in Notes (journal). pburka (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see from that link that it's one of four books reviewed together; but it's not discussed in the first page of the review, which is all that I'm currently permitted to read. So for all I know it may get two solid pages of thoughtful analysis, it may get a half-paragraph "Meanwhile....". If the photographs are noteworthy, then it's likely that they'll reemerge in a different package and under a different title; and if the result of that were noteworthy, then the new book(s) could easily be discussed in an article on Brandelius but not in one on The Grateful Dead Family Album. So if Brandelius's notability is limited to these photographs, I'd tend toward having the Album article converted into a redirect to Brandelius rather than vice versa. Incidentally, and for better or (let's hope) worse, en:WP has few articles about rock music books, and a quick sampling suggests that the average level is low (ferinstance). -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now two articles about Jerilyn Lee Brandelius -- obituaries, I would call them -- that I believe are sufficient to establish her notability, especially when combined with the other, existing references. I've added them to the article, here. — Mudwater^(Talk) 12:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A new obituary published by the San Francisco Chronicle should help this decision: https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/music/jerilyn-brandelius-author-and-member-of-the-grateful-dead-family-dies-at-72 "Jerilyn Brandelius, author and member of the Grateful Dead family, dies at 72", by Sam Whiting, September 9, 2020. Gnuish (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added the S.F. Chronicle obituary to the article. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An unpaid, by-lined obit in the SF Chronicle is sufficient evidence of notability for me. pburka (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jerilyn's an important part of the history of the Grateful Dead. It is her works that give many of us a view into the family that some of us had the displeasure of missing (as some of us got on the bus after 1995). Removing her story, her part of GD history, would be like removing the sun from the sky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:420:C0C4:1002:0:0:0:EB (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Jerilyn Brandelius was a key figure in early Grateful Dead history, both as close friend to the band and as the author of The Grateful Dead Family Album. Her life and book is a window to the band's early history. This incredibly important as the Grateful Dead is a living breathing thing, not a historical anachronism; with new fans everyday. Rather than deleting these pages, the community at large would be better served by efforts to flesh out these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:420:C0C4:1002:0:0:0:EB (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8210:33B0:B504:3442:405D:F9B (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.1.6.157 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The San Francisco Chronicle coverage offers length, depth and detail much greater than a routine obituary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not really a fan of "Weak keep" or "Weak delete" WP:!VOTEs since I tend to think you have to fall on either one side of the fence or the other and "weak" anything seems more of a "Comment" than not; so, I think that the S.F. Chronicle obituary plus WP:NEXIST is enough to keep this (at least for now). The article appears (at least in my opinion) to have been primarily created as a fluff piece (perhaps by a fan) and wasn't regularly edited over the years; so, it's not surprising that it ended up here. Due to a recent question about the article posted at the Teahouse and then her subsequent death, however, it started to attract more attention, and this AFD probably further caused it to appear on the radar of editors generally interested in trying to improve it (even if that means trimming out inappropriate content). When I posted at Talk:Jerilyn Lee Brandelius#Notability on September 3, it was probably still too soon real world time wise for reliable sources to have caught up and published things like the aforementioned obituary; after all, Brandelius is sort of a niche figure who doesn't really seem to generate lots of wide-spread reliable source coverage while they are alive, but people seem to recollect and write about after the person has died. As sad as it may seem, sometimes such persons have to die before more people decide to assess their overall impact ("legacy") and start to write about them. For this reason, I expect that as more time passes that there's a pretty good chance that more stuff about Brandelius (not only about her connection to the band, but also about her in her own right) is likely to be published. I'm not talking fan page type of WP:UGC stuff, but actual reliable source types of stuff.
Excluding the WP:SPA WP:NOTAVOTE !votes left above since they are not going to help resolve anything, I'd be interested in hearing as to how some of those who commented early on now feel about the article. I'm not asking anyone to change their !vote, but asking how they assess the S.F. Chronicles obituary. FWIW, I tried a different Google search and came up with this NYT obituary about Katie Lee (singer) which claims that Lee was Brandelius stepmom. That's not in and of itself a justification for notability per WP:INHERIT, but it might further indicate NEXIST.
As for redirecting this to the book's article, that seems counter-intuitive to me because if the book is notable than the author should be notable per item 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. I understand that might not seem entirely logical to some in a Wikipedia sense, but it would be preferable (in my opinion) to keep the bio about the author and redirect/merge the content about the book into it as opposed to trying to do the opposite if it comes down to a choice of keeping one article or the other. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 10 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 07:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Sudharsan[edit]

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

No sources exist. Created by banned user. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article has three sources, two of which mention the subject in passing. He has worked in a number of Tamil films as an editor and but hardly been discussed in any media. I could not find any significant coverage.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:11, 3 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 07:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T. S. Jay[edit]

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

No sources exist. Created by blocked user. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, No significant coverage in outside of Wikipedia. -- Padavalam ► 16:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of notability. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. EverybodyEdits (talk) 03:52, 10 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rathan Mouli[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources for this actor. Created by a blocked/paid editor. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the existing sources provide enough verifiable information on the subject. Direct quotes with career background here: [46], [47] and [48] among others. The editor who is nominating has a history of putting articles up for deletion / creating unnotable articles of actors he likes without discussion. Neutral Fan (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a question: are the films notable? TamilMirchi (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ Only one notable film, fails WP:NACTOR. Sources lack WP:SIGCOV. --Ab207 (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - for Hemachandran, you've noted "Film's budget does not matter. There are atleast three notable films where he played a lead role. That would make him qualify WP:NACTOR." Rathan Mouli's films like Vellikizhamai 13am Thethi + Arasakulam have at least 2 reviews online but no article yet. Where is the line drawn? Also plenty of sources provided career coverage in the article. Neutral Fan (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good question. If a film has two or more RS reviews, its considered notable. As TamilMirchi has now created articles for two more of his films, I'd tend towards Weak keep. --Ab207 (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of his films are unknown/low-budget as of present times.TamilMirchi (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - unknown by who, you? Hasn't stopped theatres from releasing them and newspapers from reviewing them. Neutral Fan (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I created an article for two of his films. I could only find enough sources for Vellikizhamai 13am Thethi as shown by the article size. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to have played the lead role in a number of movies, over the last decade, some of which are notable enough to have their own wikipedia pages - and there are articles discussing him, including a feature interview in the Times of India. Considering this arcile is only using english languages sources, and no doubt there would be other Hindi/tamil language sources as well, he is probably notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:46, 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 Shrek (franchise). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek in the Swamp Karaoke Dance Party[edit]

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

Non notable short film, with nothing found during a WP:BEFORE to satisfy WP:NFILM guidelines. Should be merged into Shrek article as it was released on the DVD for that film. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I can turn up in reliable sources is this, and even that isn't really substantial coverage. Not sure if a merge is a great idea, as the content is wholly unsourced and doesn't seem particularly significant. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Shrek or Shrek (franchise). Foxnpichu (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Lacks sources to stand alone at the moment. 20:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Maltuguom (talk)
Redirect to Shrek (franchise) where this short feature should get a mention. Not notable on its own unless reviews/in-depth coverage is found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shrek franchise where it is already covered as not enough coverage found for a standalone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 7 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.