Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 September	3 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Veria F.C. season

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

Probably fails WP:NSEASONS. Also almost empty, unlike articles about previous seasons. Alex (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it does NOT fail NSEASONS, but it does fail GNG. So unless somebody can improve/expand/update it, it's worthless and has no benefit and should be deleted. Giant Snowman 14:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear GNG failure Spiderone 23:25, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Carl Jr.

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

Thinly sourced promotional BLP on a subject who appears to fail WP:BASIC, but it's arguable. There is some coverage in mainstream media ([1], [2]), but at least these pieces are interviews. I do not find the awards section especially persuasive as regards notability. Viking Range is probably notable, but I don't think Fred Carl is. So I would suggest a delete-and-redirect to Viking Range. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is insufficient in-depth coverage. He is no Ron Popeil. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 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) 22:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop.com

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

Lack of notability (Note: company defunct in 2001; There may be some recent coverage, of another company with the same name) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At its current state, there's not enough notability claim to merit an article. --Infogapp1 (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact this company made barely a mark in its brief existence means it has zero notability.TH1980 (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the historic sources only show advertisements or passing mentions. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. Is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but disambiguate This one is tough bc desktop.com did play an important role in the history of the internet but the domain is currently owned a wholly unrelated company. Brad Thomas Hanks (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is insufficient in-depth coverage. Even if kept, a dab page is not used when there are only two types of a thing. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reynolds, Marin County, California

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

Durham calls it a locality on the Northwestern Pacific RR. Another source calls it a station for loading ranch products. I can't find anything to indicate this was ever a community. Does not meet basic notability threshold. Glendoremus (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability of place. Reywas92^Talk 18:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass GNG or NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 21:28, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reed, California

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

Durham calls it a locality on the Northwester Pacific RR, named after John Reed who owned the surrounding land grant at one time. I suspect it was some sort of rail facility but can't find any other information. Doesn't appear to meet basic notability requirements. Glendoremus (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass GNG or NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 21:31, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Seidenfeld

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

non-notable actress with no coverage and no long term or main roles that would qualify her under WP:NACTRESS. Even her role in Bite Me isn't mentioned in *our own* article on it nor is her character and the only substantial article about her from BWW is the equivalent of a press release. Praxidicae (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't appear that any of the films in which this actress has had a credited role have been theatrically released or are otherwise well-known. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and promotional . DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 00:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only notable production she was clearly in she had a very minor non-role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable roles, so doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and doesn't meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is insufficient in-depth coverage. Her roles seem to be of the redshirt variety. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 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 redirect to Entangled Life. Redirect to Entangled Life, as a notable work of his. Other information can be merged by regular editing. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin Sheldrake

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

Minimal evidence of passing WP:NPROF, doesn't seem to be that highly cited on Google Scholar. First book published this year, which does have a few independant reviews, but I'm not convinced is sufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR. Did have a piece in the New Yorker though - https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-secrets-of-the-wood-wide-web. Maybe WP:TOOSOON...? Kj cheetham (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Tea2min (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fresh PhD (2016), WP:TOOSOON to have acquired sufficient impact in the form of citations for WP:PROF#C1. And with only one book, published this year, he's not going to pass WP:AUTHOR yet, although it's with a major publisher and has major newspaper reviews listed. The book might be sufficiently notable for an article, in which case we could redirect Sheldrake to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Commment. The book is almost certainly notable, per [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Entangled Life, which meets WP:NBOOK#1. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Entangled Life, unless more biographical information turns up about Merlin Sheldrake himself that drastically changes the situation. XOR'easter (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and Merge, if the current biographical info is of interest to anyone, it belongs there. Or at least for the time being, as you say. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to either Rupert Sheldrake or Jill Purce. As the person who started this article, I shall say that I merely started it to stop the name in the article on Jill Purce being in red wikilinks. However, if there is a redirect to either Rupert Sheldrake (Merlin Sheldrake's father) or Jill Purce (Merlin Sheldrake's mother) this should remove the red wikilinks. Vorbee (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, it would have been fine to just remove the links. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this could go to a merge and redirect - the question is do we redirect the page to Entangled Life, to Rupert Sheldrake or to Jill Purce? Vorbee (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vorbee: (As someone with a vested interest in Entangled Life, having just created it :) ) I think Entangled Life is better. Seems either arbitrary or duplicative to pick a parent and merge to that, and it's reasonable to have some "about the author" info in a page about the book. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Entangled Life, which didn't exist when I first nominated this. I see no benefit of merging to a parent article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Entangled Life for now. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was written about in The New Yorker in 2016 and The Telegraph this year, and his book is reviewed well in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.--Filmgirlfannn (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Entangled Life. Too soon for WP:NPROF, and a single book falls under WP:BLP1E. It looks likely that they'll eventually merit their own article, but still WP:TOOSOON. It's more appropriate to redirect to the page about his work; his notable parents could be _briefly_ mentioned there. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Entangled Life. // Timothy :: talk 16:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, to either Rupert Sheldrake or Jill Purce. Alex-h (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this could go to a redirect to Entangled Life, but could some information on the author still go there? Vorbee (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like some information has recently been included there. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:55, 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 20:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swayam Infotainment

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

non-notable production company. No sources in article, very few independent sources come up in a search. Chuka Chief (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I only found one possible source [9], but it doesn't have an author and I couldn't find the website's masthead, so I don't think it's a WP:RS. No other references were found in a Google, JSTOR, ProQuest or NYT search. Z1720 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know why this doesn't have a G11 tag on it. --◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11 per the above — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google search of Swayam Infotainment followed by pratibha advani brings up a few reliable sources [10][11] with only brief mentions and the subject still does not meet the criteria for a stand-alone article.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:SIGCOV. See these two very brief mentions. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 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 Madagascar (franchise). -- WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (^talk) 11:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madly Madagascar

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

Non notable short film in a franchise, already covered in the Madagascar (franchise) article. Nothing to establish it needed its own article found on a WP:BEFORE search. PROD removed with no explanation. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Madagascar (franchise). Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. No significant sources were found in a Google, NYT, JSTOR or ProQuest search. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madagascar (franchise). Ping me if better sources are found, so far I am seeing nothing to make this pass NFILM etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above where it is already covered as not enough coverage found for a standalone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:46, 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. Clear consensus to “keep” the article has been established by the community. Furthermore per WP:HEY. Thanks to efforts by AleatoryPonderings. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 11:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get Better Records

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

Non notable music organization which fails to satisfy WP:NCORP. A before search links me to self published unreliable sources. The current sources in the article read like PR sponsored material(1-3) whilst the remainder mention them in passing without WP:SIGCOV thus doesn’t adhere to WP:ORGCRIT. Perhaps a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 18:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I see two sources in the article in respectable publications—Billboard and LA Weekly—both of which have bylines. But I would like to have WP:THREE, hence my keep being weak. I am not sure how one can determine by stylistic analysis alone that a news article in a respectable publication is sponsored content, and I disagree with the nom's reading of these sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings hello, LA Weekly & the Los Angeles Times aren’t one and the same. Although “respected” it hasn’t been vetted by the community to be a reliable source. Furthermore I’m not sure you should trust that particular publication of theirs it reads a lot like a PR sponsored material. And yes, your three argument is also something I put into consideration, theoretically even if the LA weekly source was reliable (which it isn’t), per WP:GNG, we require in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & just two sources certainly do not constitute what we would classify as sources. You can carry out a before search so you can see what I am seeing, which is; self published sources, user generated sources, press releases, and other unreliable material. At best this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON as a source used in this article refers to them as fast rising. Celestina007 20:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that LA Weekly and the Los Angeles Times are not the same. In my view, both are reliable sources. Of course, others may disagree. But a source needn't be listed at Wikipedia:Perennial sources in order to be considered reliable. Vetting sources for reliability is, AFAIK, one of the primary purposes of AfD, so I don't think it's fair to dismiss LA Weekly as unreliable simply because it hasn't yet been listed as an unambiguously trusted source. FWIW, my searches revealed hits in other publications I'd consider reliable such as Pitchfork. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, You are very much correct. A source need not be listed at WP:RSP before it is considered reliable & i should also state that I’m not necessarily referring to a LA Weekly as an utter unreliable source however what I’m calling unreliable is that particular publication, as we all know that even reliable sources sometimes publish unreliable material (an example would be a reliable source publishing a sponsored post, in that context it is unreliable). Generally I think my point is that there aren’t enough reliable sources available for this article to be retained at the moment, even to the point that the same source we seem to be in contention of refer to them as “fast rising” which is a nod to WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 21:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, Thanks for your clarification :) Much appreciated! I'll leave it to others to assess the reliability of the LA Weekly article, as well as the others I've recently added. Despite the volume of refs I've dropped in, I think I'm still a weak keep as it would be charitable to refer to most of the sources I found as WP:SIGCOV. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, I see you have added 10 more sources which is great, but almost all 10 of them aren’t directly discussing the musical organization, almost all appear to mention them in passing(very briefly) or mere name dropping & like you have rightfully said significant coverage is a huge factor here. The new sources do not discuss the organization with significant coverage hence doesn’t adhere to WP:ORG. Anyway like you have rightfully said I guess it’s time we both rest & let others chime in. Celestina007 21:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage in Billboard and LA Weekly that were already in the article, and the post-AfD nom expassion work that has been done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Billboard, LA Weekly, Bandcamp, Pitchfork and Spin are all legitimate press coverage, dismissing mentions in these as 'PR' seems excessively pessimistic. The label has recent notable releases. I can add more as I find it. Lewishhh (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - thanks to the improvements by AleatoryPonderings. I agree there should be more references that speak to the label itself, (most of the sources cover the musicians, which is why my !vote is weak because WP:NOTINHERITED), however I think the it is now over the edge of notability. LA Weekly is a reliable source, as are Billboard and Pitchfork; I've always thought Bandcamp was user generated material, but I may be wrong about that. Netherzone (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone Bandcamp Daily, which is what's being cited, is the area of the site that is an online publication dedicated to music reportage written by their staff and other commissioned music writers.Lewishhh (talk) 15:01, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Axis Forex Online

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

promotional only page by known undeclared page editor in violation of tou -- the contents is all pr and would be a candidate for deletion no matter who has written it. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I could find nothing except routine press releases. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment Some of the references look like press release, but some don't. Even the ones that look like press release may not be, because it doesn't have some of the press release type formatting. I am undecided to keep or delete. This company could be significant in India. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is largely cited to press releases, see this [12]. In addition to this, the creator used some of Axis bank's Wiki sources which do not even mention the service, to make it look well referenced.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Its a service offered by Axis Bank which is non-notable for a standalone page. The forex services of SBI, ICICI, HDFC Banks are bigger in size than Axis Bank and they do not have standalone articles. The entire page is WP:PROMO in nature with sources basically being PR. - Roller26 (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:SIGCOV. It seems to be a service offered by a bank. There are Times of India articles, but the coverage is routine. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [squeal] || 22:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael K. Obeng

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

PR from an undeclared paid editor. Fails WP:PROF--just one publication; the references are basically press releases. The reason there are so many is they are copies of the same PR published in multiple papers. Most of the pr is because he has operated on some celebrities like most plastic surgeons in his geographic area. . Minor charitable work, man 1press release references to it. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage and mentions in well know publications. I also feel that being the FIRST black surgeon in Beverly Hills is very significant. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't the only black surgeon in Beverly Hills and he isn't even the only black plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills. See here and here. Which really makes me wonder about the credibility of the single source stating this information as fact. Praxidicae (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae I am sorry, I need to correct what I said. The article said that he is the "FIRST" black surgoen in BH, but the Wiki page has no such claims anyway. I have revised my statement I made earlier. Also the 2nd link you send is in LA, not BH, but very close to BH. Also i do feel there are some promotional statements in this article. I will see if I can revise them. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when an article is based on sources that make flase claims, the article becomes suspect. Even if he was the only black platic surgeon in Beverly Hills, I am unconvinced that would be a sign of notability. The fact that people are falsely claiming he is is a disturbing trend and probably shows signs such is overly promotionalist and maybe even deliberately false advertising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I have read this article twice and I don't find any promotional content in it. This is 100% informative article which contains tons of information and 0 promotional content. And when it comes of it being paid editing I don't feel so as the depth of information given can only be given when it is written by the person himself. Author Sanju (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article does not claim he is only black plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills. Doesn't overhype the fact that he was included in the top 100 list of notable black persons in 2020. Was also noted in such credible sources as Variety, eonline, Black Enterprise, deadline, etc. He seems to be a well accomplished African American and should remain.TruthLover123 (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accomplished African-American surgeon in Beverly Hills, and is on Variety, Black Enterprise, Deadline, Ebony, etc. Looks quite notable for a black surgeon. Batmanthe8th (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the reason for deletion is primarily Promotional content by undeclared page editor. not notability, though I doubt that also. I however do question the meaning of "Looks quite notable for a black surgeon". [[User::Batmanthe8th|

Batmanthe8th]], are you sure that this wording is what you want to say? DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Is mentioned in some popular items, "Forehead reduction surgery"... but also noted in some titles for awards recieved and his charity efforts in Africa. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I am writing in tbe right section. I am trying to apologize as I am friends with an ex-patient of the doctor who did some amazing work for him. I did pay someone by mistake to help tbe article without knowing it was not allowed. I'm really sorry but why are there so many people online who say they do that? Anyway I guess they wrote stuff that was too promotional sounding but it looks like a lot of people who saw this helped fix it. The doctor did not know about it and should not have his page deleted which has been edited by a lot of people over many months.I really want to fix this please. If there is anything else that needs to be removed please let me know and I will get advice as to how to take it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewbieGuy1 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well then the article needs to be cleaned up and all the promotional fluff removed by the Wikipedia community, but my personal assessment is that this Obeng should notable enough regardless of whether there is a COI or not. Batmanthe8th (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Just a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL doctor who does a little charity on the side, as do countless others, only he has repetitious press releases to. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it odd that three of the five "keep" votes so far are from editors who have only begun editing Wikipedia within the past few months. That is a very unusual pattern of participants in an AfD. BD2412 T 00:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' his sources: Variety, Black Enterprise, Deadline, Ebony all have their own Wikipedia pages. Ebony has been in business 74 years, and nominated him this year as one of the top 100 most notable black people in the world. He was also covered by AOL, Inside Edition, and MSN. Aol, and MSN are also considered noteworthy enough to keep this Wikipedia article. Aol, Inside Edition and MSN are also considered noteworth enough to have their own wikipedia pages. A great portion of the medical community in Beverly Hills, especially for elective surgeries, was basically shut down for many months due to the Covid-19 threat. The virus would also significantly slow down any of the doctor's philanthropic work due to lack of funding and individual's fears about contracting it Author Sanju (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You already voted. This isn't vote early, vote often. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing sustained coverage of this WP:MILL figure. (t · c) buidhe 21:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Diner

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

Local business, fails WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. Routine business only. History section largely WP:OR. Kleuske (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Article has several citations, none of which count towards notability (WP:ORGDEPTH). They consist of directory entries, non-notable awards, branch openings, and restaurant reviews that don't meet WP:PRODUCTREV. Per WP:ORGDEPTH: "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement: ... standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: ... of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops". I did some WP:BEFORE checking and turned up nothing further. It seems their most notable claim to fame is being a vegan restaurant in the middle of "Cowtown USA". Normal Op (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was going to vote delete, but then did a google news search and there are tons of recent news about this place, NBC 5 Dallas, Dallas Morning News, Forth Worth Star Telegram, to name a few. Also they have won some awards. I feel it is meets WP:NORG. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to mention some of those articles? Just claiming there are isn’t a very convincing argument. Kleuske (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few reviews and announcements in local sources, but nothing that shows WP:CORPDEPTH. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitratech Holdings Inc.

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

does not meet WP:NCORP. Every reference is a notice or a press release, or a mention of it in another context or a PRcelebration that someone bought their package DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCORP! There is significant coverage and even 2 mentions in WSJ! Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A mention in WSJ is still only a mention, not significant coverage. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notabilty. And Expertwikiguy is no expert on NCORP as "mentions" are specifically ruled out. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alicja Tubilewicz

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

non-notable model, sourced to photos with no actual coverage (aside from the normal black hat SEO fake news sites) Praxidicae (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as she is an international model (Being in shows internationally). The article needs serious work, but she is notable enough for a wikipedia article. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google search her name and you see multiple search results. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is precisely why I've AFD'd it. The results are almost entirely black hat SEO spam that her PR team paid for without a single independent source that has in depth coverage. Being "an international model" is a job title, it isn't an indicator of notability, the same as being "an international traveler" Praxidicae (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you do have evidence that the results are "black hat SEO spam" that the PR team paid for. (I don't doubt it, but that statement you said above alludes that you have evidence of that and it should be stated for the AFD process.) Elijahandskip (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I've explained it in multiple places. They are operated by several different firms and looking at their "about us" page will indicate why. I'm not going to delve repeatedly into every single source. The reason why those source aren't in the article is because they are blacklisted from the several arguments I've already made. Praxidicae (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per Praxidicae’s conversation with Elijahandskip above. An article spammed with PR sponsored posts is very much indicative of the non notability of article’s subject. A massive GNG fail seeing as a great majority of sources used aren’t independent of the subject. Celestina007 19:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being. an international model is not necessarily or even usualy notability -- and it any case it's essentialy an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Sources and BEFORE all look like promo pieces.
Weak delete Frankly (as someone all too familiar) I’m surprised she even has an article right now. While I do believe her work is notable as a model, unfortunately there are just not enough reliable sources to establish general notability. We’ve got to be able to verify these things. Trillfendi (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Coverage is both very niche (best is [13]?) and reads like re-written press releases, mostly not about her about about the collections she is wearing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG - locally known, not outside of her market. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 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 17:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BusinessEnergyQuotes.com

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

completely non-notable website/company. Fails WP:NWEB. No independent coverage also appears to be a paid for advert. Praxidicae (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was writing up an AfD of my own for this article following my decline of Prax's G11. Non-notable, all coverage I can find is WP:MILL with a healthy dose of advertorial or churnalism (including a number of "news articles" by energylivenews.com and netimesmagazine.co.uk which, despite having different bylines, appear to basically be the same press releases with a little independent paraphrasing on top). GeneralNotability (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it was a valid G11, but in ay event the firm is not notable--the references do not meet WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant advertising. Deb (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the author for this. MER-C 14:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails NCORP/GNG HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:NCORP, and WP:SIGCOV. There is no evidence at all of news coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 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 17:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1995–96 Newport A.F.C. season

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

All of these articles clearly fail WP:GNG due to having nothing remarkable about them; just routine match reports, squad lists and league tables. All fail WP:NSEASONS due to Newport playing at least two tiers below fully pro level on all articles and all articles violate WP:NOTSTATS.

There are a large number of Newport season articles that could be added here but for now I am adding only these:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, fails NSEASONS/GNG. Giant Snowman 21:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 10:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per GiantSnowman and Number 57. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Batmanthe8th (talk) 04:19, 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. Only one claim to GNG and its very vague. There's clearly some coverage of the club over this time, but not convinced there is enough non routine coverage to justify individual season articles for a club at this level. Fenix down (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 AFC Wimbledon season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as playing in a league below the professional level. All articles (including the early ones) contain nothing more than routine match reports, squad lists and league tables so all clearly fail WP:GNG and fall foul of WP:NOTSTATS.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, fails NSEASONS/GNG. Giant Snowman 17:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the fact that they are currently poorly written does not indicate a GNG fail. I would expect there to be decent coverage of these given the circumstances of the clubs formation but I haven't really had a look for anything yet. I'm abstaining for the time being as I expect User:Nfitz will have a good look for some sources. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of relevant info but it's all in the main article under 'history' anyway. There is simply no need for league tables and match results for a league that's several tiers below professional level as Wikipedia is not a stats directory. Spiderone 09:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: - I'd still like to see if anyone else can find any decent coverage here, but if it doesn't exist, merging all the season articles from 2002-03 to 2010-11 might be sensible, or splitting the club's history section into a seperate article or something because there is most likely a fair amount of coverage on all of these. They do currently fall foul of NOTSTATS, but if well sourced prose can be added, there's no reason to delete these. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a history article being created if too big for the main AFC Wimbledon article Spiderone 10:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to spend more time User:Microwave Anarchist, researching these - but I simply don't have the time. I spent a lot of effort finding lots of good references on that one very famous Newport season, and that wasn't good enough for the deletionists who care more about making black-and-white rules than applying judgment, then so be it - I note the 2010-11 season which is in the same tier, but they got promotion was left out. Though, hang on ... User:Spiderone, this certainly isn't "several tiers below professional". This tier is professional, and only a single tier below "fully-professional". These days many teams in this tier ARE fully-professional - as was Wimbledon some seasons if I recall. Nfitz (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: you are a very busy editor :). I always appreciate the effort you go to to look for references and frankly I shouldn't be so lazy and look myself. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm less active now that we are partially out of lock-down, and I've been partially un-laid-off ... though with any luck, I'll have more time if there's a second wave, and I get fired ... Nfitz (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my "several tiers..." comment was relating to their initial formation so back in 02/03 Spiderone 18:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 10:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Finally had a chance to look at some sources. And there's lot's of mainstream coverage, despite not being quite the top tier. Wasn't Wimbledon fully-professional during some of these seasons, even if the league wasn't? Might explain why there's so much coverage with over 3,261 Proquest results for "AFC Wimbledon" in the 9-year period from 2002 to 2010. Some examples - Sunday Times - "AFC Wimbledon in record debut, August 2002"; Sunday Times "AFC Wimbledon make Fa Cup history", October 2002; Sunday Times "AFC Wimbledon celebrated the reduction in their 18-point penalty for fielding an ineligible player", April, 2007; Daily Telegraph "...but AFC Wimbledon suffer play-off blow", March 2008; Evening Standard "AFC Wimbledon 'win' FA Cup back from Dons"; The Times "AFC Wimbledon may be home owners", March 2003; ... just from page 1 of over 150. Looks like a BEFORE fail. Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the important bits are summarised in the main AFC Wimbledon article. I see no point in having league tables, squad lists etc. as Wikipedia is not a stats directory. Also, we need to remember that some of these articles involve leagues way below even the Conference South! If the info is too much for the main article, then I would be okay with creation of an article for History of AFC Wimbledon. Spiderone 23:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you write such an article User:Spiderone, then by all means merge and redirect to it. But it doesn't exist, and it seems very short-sited to delete before merging. Nfitz (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For now, the main AFC Wimbledon article is just fine and covers their history very well. For these season articles on this AfD I see no reason why we can't just delete them as there is absolutely nothing of any value worth keeping in any of them. At the very least, they should be redirected to the main AFC Wimbledon article but that's only if there is a basis for them being plausible search terms, which I don't agree with either. With the sources that you have pulled, these could well be used to supplement the main club article but I see no reason for keeping individual season articles for seasons that clearly fail NSEASONS and GNG. Spiderone 09:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above. Batmanthe8th (talk) 04:19, 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 11:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salah El Din Al Tijany

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject, language may be a barrier but his Egyptian page is similarly unsourced. Not sure if anything on the page confers notability. J04n(talk page) 17:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are absolutely no references used other than his website, so nothing can be verified. A Google search only brings up other Wiki types sites for him with the same info. He seems to have an extensive number of books, so he may be notable based on these, but without any references it cannot be verified. Expertwikiguy (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V; it may be entirely true, but without secondary sources, it violates WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 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 17:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Lundholm

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

Appears to fail NACTOR and GNG. I'm not seeing any noteworthy roles, nor any significant coverage in RS. Sources seem to be reviews of plays she was in. Is written like a resume. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as she hasn't been a main cast in anything. No coverage that makes her known or notable for wikipedia. Maybe in the future, she will be notable, but for now, she isn't notable enough for her own wikipedia article. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NACTOR. I'm an actor and if this is enough for an article on Wikipedia, then I should have one. (I should not have one.) EverybodyEdits (talk) 05:53, 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 Keram Malicki-Sánchez. as WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Dog Pict

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

There's nothing in this article to demonstrate notability per WP:NMUSICBIO and a BEFORE search throw out nothing but user-generated sources and promotional sites. As an alternative to deletion, the page could conceivably be redirected to Keram Malicki-Sánchez, the band's front man. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sourcing is trash. It consists of a list of releases by Canadian record labels, a blank Allmusic page, a short blurb on Exclaim about a song and some bookstore. Google results are the standard junk sites. Not notable on its own. The title can stay as a redirect but that's it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (my preference) or Redirect to Keram Malicki-Sánchez. This is one of many projects by this multimedia jack-of-all-trades. The band seems to have gotten little independent and reliable notice in their own right. They can be mentioned at Malicki-Sánchez's page, and already are. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:45, 2 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 17:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Yeow Sun discography

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

Unremarkable music discography, per WP:NM. The singer in question is a church pastor from Singapore whose music career is not notable enough for her to have her own discography article. The general state of the article is also a mess, with improper formatting and many other errors. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 16:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any pertinent information can be merged into the artiste's own page: there seems no point turning this into a redirect, as anyone searching for the information will find her page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – robertsky (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete The main article of the artist can be still expanded with a "Discography" section. desmay (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of value worth keeping Spiderone 19:43, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Malti

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

A stub article that fails to satisfy WP:NFILM. Not a single reference has been cited throughout the body and the article is more or less a mirror of the film's IMDB page. Has also been tagged for improvement for the past year, without any results. Sunshine1191 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete a search found nothing to support this film's notability. Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, changing vote due to newly found/added citations. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The article is an unreferenced stub, but that is not a reason for deletion. The cast is impressive. Has the nominator searched for sources about मधु मालती or Madhumālatī? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has as one of its principals verifiability. We cannot justify having any unreferenced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The IMDB link does nothing to establish notability but goes a long way towards verifying the information. Before nominating an article for deletion, an editor should check for sources that would establish notability. Better to improve than delete an article on a notable subject. The question to Sunshine1191 is whether they have searched for sources about मधु मालती or Madhumālatī. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Replying to Aymatth2 (talk · contribs) Speaking about notability first... A movie hardly classifies as notable when all its Wiki article includes is the name of the director, original release date and the names of four cast members whose character names haven't even been listed. Secondly, as a matter of fact I have searched the net for reliable sources related to the movie and have turned up with zilch. However, if you feel that the movie is indeed significant, you are more than welcome to further develop and improve the page. Currently though, the article fails the GNG's. Cheers Sunshine1191 (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notability of a movie has nothing to do with the quality of the Wikipedia article. There could be no article, but the movie could still be notable. Or there could be only a very poor article, as is the case here. The article should only be deleted if the movie itself is clearly not notable. Since this is a Hindi movie, a search limited to English sources is unlikely to be particularly relevant. Again, the question is whether the nominator has searched for sources about मधु मालती or Madhumālatī. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has said they carried out searches. Have you carried out searches? What did you find? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Malcolmxl5: The nominator Sunshine1191 does not say they have searched for any Hindi-language sources, online or offline. If they have only searched online for English sources this AfD is invalid and a waste of time. Given the cast, director etc. it would be very unlikely that the film would not have been discussed in depth by the Hindi-language film magazines of the time, as indeed it was. Johnpacklambert may care to comment. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have access to any offline sources but having studied Hindi for my O-levels I carried out a web search for the film in the form of मधु मालती and मधुमालती and not a single match has come up. Given the age of the movie, finding in-depth coverage in secendary sources is highly unlikely. Not commenting on the notability of the film itself, but the Wikipedia article in its current state is basically a mirror of the film's IMDB page and what's the point in having a mirror here when the original is present at IMDB. TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedDomitor: The stars are well known by many of our older readers. An editor with a stash of back numbers of Filmfare or Stardust might decide to use the reviews to create or pump up the articles on films these actors starred in. If they get the red wall of death on a creation attempt, they will be discouraged. That will not help our readers, who may want to know more about these notable films. The only reason to delete an article is that the subject clearly is not notable. That is highly unlikely in this case. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aymatth2: I don't want to sound condescending here because I actually think that the point you have put forward is quite valid. At the same time however, it makes me wonder that for an article that has remained undeveloped since it's creation more than a decade ago, what is the realistic probability of someone coming in and improving the article in the future. What does the creator of this article Encyclopædius have to say about this? TheRedDomitor (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It is my understanding that, and Malcolmxl5 pls correct me if i'm wrong here, as long as a title isn't salted, recreation of a previously deleted article is very much possible so long as the editor understands why the previous article was deleted and the new article is able to conform to the Wiki guidelines. TheRedDomitor (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheRedDomitor Things have moved on a bit, I see, since I was here last but I’ll quickly answer this. There would no bar to recreation though issues identified in a deletion discussion would need to be addressed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor sees a film stub and has access to a relevant film review, they may well click [edit] and add a summary of the review to the article, which is easy. If there is no article, they less likely to start a new article and add the information, which is harder. But if the article has previously been deleted, it takes an editor with very strong nerves to recreate the article. When they go to start it they see something like:

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.

23:31, 9 September 2020 User:Aymatth2 deleted page Madhu Malti (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhu Malti)

They are, of course, recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page. Most editors would stop right there. Mainstream films are always noted at time of release, and the reviews are unlikely to have completely disappeared. Far better to fix up the stub as far as possible, as Shshshsh has done with this one, and hope more content will be added later. Deletion is a blunt instrument that should be used only when an article is harmful or the subject clearly cannot be notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: I don’t disagree what what you say but in my experience, such arguments carry little weight in deletion discussions. Far better to find sources (as others have been doing), just two good quality ones - reliable, independent, in-depth - will do. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is built on verifiability. Unless you present an actual Hindi source that is a reliable source showing coverage we have no reason to show deference to your claim that such sources exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I, on the other hand, do think that films are notable, especially films by renowned directors, and Bhattacharya is one. One of the biggest problems with Hindi films, particularly of that era, is the lack of coverage available online, but let's see, I've started looking for some references, maybe it could be kept eventually. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnpacklambert and keeping all the points stated above in mind, I cast my vote as Delete. The creator of this article has been active on Wiki since being asked to share their thoughts on the matter but has chosen not to do so, indicating that they are maintaining a neutral opinion regarding the deletion. The article in its current state is an IMDB stub and no sources have been found online in Hindi or English to back-up the article's contents. In the future if someone truly passionate about the film or the actors in it chooses to recreate the article with old reliable sources then praise but a futuristic possibility isn't a strong enough reason to currently keep the article. TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a mainstream Bollywood film with a well-known director and cast. There are various websites that give technical details, synopsis of the plot, lyrics etc., so the content is verifiable. There can be no doubt that the film would have been reviewed in all the main magazines at the time, but the film is in the dead zone between the "classic" and "internet" eras, so we cannot see these reviews online. A film buff with access to the offline sources may well choose to pump up the article. Meanwhile, it has some use in its rudimentary state. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay, I did my best to expand the article. Its verifiability has improved, I believe. I invite those who have voted to delete it to have a look and reconsider their stand. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my nomination. Even with the new edits the page is still a stub record of the various technical specs regarding the movie which has already been done by IMDB, with all the technical details, pictures of scenes, cast names, the works. What makes Wiki different is the in-depth coverage of the various aspects in making a notable movie: timelines in production, character descriptions, critical reception, box office performance, distribution etc, all of which is still missing from the article. But hey, this is just my point of view. Sunshine1191 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, more sources have been found and added now. Second, you're wrong about IMDb - none of the information I've added appears on IMDB - the film's entry is very poor there. Third, if we were to follow your logic that film articles without information on "timelines in production, character descriptions, critical reception, box office performance, distribution" do not deserve a Wiki article, then the great majority of Indian films except for very few up to 2000 would not deserve a Wikipedia article, because sadly, no such information is available online for the most part. Similarly, a great majority of articles on films in general would not justify a Wikipedia article. I thus disagree with this sentiment, and I find it to be a misinterpretation (no offence intended) of the notability guideline. I believe in the importance of verifiability of course, and as you see, it has been achieved considerably now. What makes Wikipedia special, in my opinion, is the opportunity to gather information from all sources available and the potential it creates for further improvement and addition of information. Personally I think deleting film articles is really against the spirit of Wikipedia. I think that all films the existence of which is not doubted, particularly those made by notable directors, starring notable actors, and having even minimal online coverage, merit a Wikipedia article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More work done since my last update. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They deleted Kahin Aar Kahin Paar the other day with the same rationale, "not an imdb mirror, lacks RS".† Encyclopædius 16:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to the effort of Shahid, clearly meets notability guidelines.† Encyclopædius 14:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been doing some searches using the title and the variants suggested + Sachin + Sarika. I find some snippets: in Screen World Publication's 75 Glorious Years of Indian Cinema (1988), Indian Film (1979) though I can’t judge the depth of the coverage. I’m aware though that Google does not index Indian topics very well. WikiProject India use to have custom searches specifically to deal with this problem but I can’t seem to find them. Are they still available? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Shshshsh has added a vast number of sources, including several film encyclopedias. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of references to multiple reliable sources coverage so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the GNG; AfD is not clean up. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newly found sources establish notability. --Ab207 (talk) 22:38, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhinagar Samachar

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

New article about Gujarati-language daily. I didn't find any independent reliable source for it. --Gazal world (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a virtually not annotated directory to the internet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see the other ones that this user has created. Definitely not notable. --◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 04:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another newspaper without any coverage by other newspapers, which one would expect. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 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) 01:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhinagar Metro

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

New article about Gujarati-language daily. I didn't find any independent reliable source for it. --Gazal world (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all articles should have at least one source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another newspaper without any coverage by other newspapers, which one would expect. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable paper. Doesn't qualify WP:NMEDIA criteria. Roller26 (talk) 21:58, 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 redirect to Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case. WP:SNOW, (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (^talk) 11:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Birkhead

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

Classic WP:ONEEVENT , we already have an article on Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case and all coverage of the individual relates to this or their relationship with Anna Nicole Smith, subject of said paternity case Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case. Notability WP:NOTINHERITED. Not notable for anything else. WP:BLP1E Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case as may be a wikireader term, not wikinotable for anything else (what is particularly telling is that editors who add afds to relevant deletion discussion lists (including yours truly:)) haven't added this to any, nom has added to peeps (suppose could also add to USA but not really necessary)). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 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 Speedily Deleted per WP:A10 and WP:G12.(non-admin closure)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarian States

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

WP:POVFORK of List of totalitarian regimes Vahurzpu (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion. This article was created over the controversial article "List of Totalitarian regime." This article presents information that lines up with the individual articles for each mentioned state. The other article however does not and provides incorrect information. It seems that the people who work on the other article do not except changes to their article despite it not present coherent information. This may cause confusion for readers. The other article clearly presents a historical bias by removing those regimes that are more "right wing" and instead mainly focuses on communist regimes. The information on this article is more neutral and factually correct, as backed up by the citations. Alpsman (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. More factual evidence and citations on this article compared to the other article “List of Totalitarian regimes”. That article also provides conflicting information to other Wikipedia articles. This article has copied information however. But should be edited not deleted. The information presented in this article is neutral and supports other Wikipedia articles and historical evidence.Alex historian (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of CONTENTFORK designed to evade consensus at the list article. A10: duplication of existing topic. It's also a violation of wikipedia's terms and conditions, as content has been copied from the original article without attribution. DrKay (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: sock puppet blocked and vote struck. For the record, Alpsman and Alex Historian are on the same IP address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A10 and G12 (of Totalitarianism), as per DrKay. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE There are 22 things listed here and only 12 in List of totalitarian regimes. If any fit over there, they should be merged. Dream Focus 02:52, 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 withdrawn and redirected as a commenter noticed that there's already another, better and well-referenced article about this topic at his full name. Bearcat (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keram (Musical Artist)

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here is that his music exists, not that he achieved anything with it that would pass NMUSIC's accomplishment-based tests (charting hits, touring, notable music awards, etc.), and the referencing isn't solid enough to get him over the "notable because he has media coverage" either: the sources are almost entirely blogs and directory entries and primary sources that aren't support for notability, as well as a 68-word blurb in a "many blurbs about many things" column which isn't a substantive source. The only footnote that's actually contributing anything at all toward getting him over WP:GNG is #1 (Exclaim!), which is not enough by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have considerably more than just one hit of reliable source coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Falls short of any criteria outlined in WP:NMUSICIAN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (my preference) or Redirect to Keram Malicki-Sánchez if required by policy, though I doubt if anyone would search for the exact phrase "Keram (Musical Artist)". The guy is a multimedia jack-of-all-trades under his full name, for which there is already an article. He has done some music under the shorter name used in this article, and there is nothing here that is not already mentioned at the other article. His music does not have enough media notice to justify its own article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, I missed that there was already a much longer and more detailed and better referenced article about him at his full name. That's definitely not in a deletable state (although there are still some referencing issues with it too), so I'm just going to withdraw this discussion and redirect the article there. Thanks for catching that. Bearcat (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Consensus for deletion is clear. I suggest the question of whether PAPP is a reliable, cite-able secondary source be raised at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public Art in Public Places

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

Fails WP:ORG. The article has been tagged for notability since Nov. 2018, and other than one sentence (see Talk:Public Art in Public Places), I can't find any coverage whatsoever.

What has changed is the number of Wikipedia entries that now mention the organization I count 80. Barte (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Barte (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Barte (talk) 15:34, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG, only passing mentions in articles about other topics. No significant coverage. - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing appears to have changed since I originally raised concerns about its notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is curious that the editor who has been adding all those links to the organization to articles, happens to have the same name as the organization's director. Netherzone (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC) This user K. M. Williamson . Netherzone (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think once this discussion is complete that issue needs to be addressed. - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - If the nom is accepted and the article deleted, where's the best place for that discussion? Barte (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- They claimed to have no affiliation. Some cleanup is probably warranted indeed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching online, I could not find anything except social media such as Pinterest "pins", Facebook postings, and a LinkedIn entry. The articles in the references are on the artist's works, not on the organization itself, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the artists whose works are in their database. Fails WP:NCORP criteria. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fellow editors: As the author of the WP article on this organization, and after considering your views here, please allow me to weigh in. I reluctantly must agree with Barte that he has indeed been correct that additional citations/sources have unfortunately not materialized in the past 2 years. Absent such, no, this org. article does not yet meet WP notability. Let me say, however, that I believe the long-standing Notability banner flagging this article may very well have discouraged any media attention - Wikipedia is that influential - so I can see Mr. Williamson's (org.'s director) concern with the tacitly negative impact to the org's reputation. I also note what I must defend as unfounded concern about my and others' contributions of various references by Public Art in Public Places in articles on public artworks. I would challenge you to focus on the validity and relevance of these references, keeping in mind that this org is a public archive, akin to the Smithsonian's Save Outdoor Sculptures archive - it is WP that benefits from this data, the org is non-profit, non-commercial, the archive is active, free & open, accurate. As I have reiterated to two of you here, I highly esteem this archive as a public benefit, but I have no connection whatsoever with the org or their staff. In sum, please grant me the respect of a conscientious and well-intentioned colleague, and in the interest of fairness to this org I'd support a speedy deletion of the WP org article. Respectfully, TashaB (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - FYI: user:Natasha Behrendt is now User:Shabehr. User:K. M. Williamson is now User:M Na zdravi Barte (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - With the article's lack of notability all but settled, I'd like to address whether PAPP is a reliable, cite-able secondary source as well as the question of WP:LINKSPAM. The problem with establishing the former is the lack of transparency and vetting. Looking at PAPP's official site, I don't see what I'd expect to see to confidently link to it. The claim is that PAPP "collaborates with with local governments, news media, technology firms, and arts and cultural organizations to provide free and accessible public art information as a public benefit." But other than Google, none of these are named. There's no history of the project. No endorsements from institutions or experts. As established above, there's no press coverage. The Director, a "social ecologist", has a one-sentence bio and no other online presence I can find. Do you see the problem?

The linkspam question exasperates this, because when an organization that hasn't established notability or reliability is inserted into 80 Wikipedia entries, eyebrows are raised. And that's not good for either Wikipedia or PAPP. My advice is to disentangle the two for the benefit of both. Take out all the references. Stop arguing the organization is notable because of all those links (See the thread on my talk page.) And trust the process. Barte (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same concerns, but you have explained them very succinctly. - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barte, I'm coming to this from the perspective of someone who used PAPP for one reference for a fact at Dividing the Light that I couldn't find anywhere else (the diameter of the piece's aperture). I agree that the indications currently are that the organization would not hold up as a RS for an FA review, but with regard to supporting what would otherwise be an unreferenced non-controversial claim in a start-class page, it's better than nothing, so I'd want to see it at most tagged with {{Better source needed}}, not removed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-oct-21-ca-turrell21-story.html Barte (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real concern here is that the organization has been gratuitously mentioned on Wikipedia for promotional purposes. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the WP:LINKSPAMing is extremely disturbing. And no, I do not think their database should be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Netherzone (talk) 21:43, 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 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Viswanath

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

Only directed one film yet. WP:Too early. TamilMirchi (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 11:19, 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 keep. The subject has won national film awards, and there is no chance of TOOSOON. First feature film Sringaram is 13-yr old, and is award winning. Closing earlier per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (^talk) 12:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharada Ramanathan

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

Only directed one film yet. WP:Too early. TamilMirchi (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Director of a national award winning film, seems a reasonably important achievement. Furthermore, references do checkout (between The Hindu, and Rediff). I was able to find a few additional as well. E.g. Indian Express [14]. If there is a concern around WP:PUFF, the same should be left as a tag on the page. However, I do not agree that this is WP:TOOSOON. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several sources exist online. A good example of quality over quantity, several other projects barring just the national award winning Sringaram [15][16] Neutral Fan (talk) 21:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writer in the Dark

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

User MarioSoulTruthMan mentioned that this article fails all three factors for notability. I was the user who created and worked on this article. If this article does meet the AfD requirements, then it should be deleted. De88 (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you nominating this on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan? What do you think about the subject's notability? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and procedural close. First of all, I don't think the article's primary author needed to nominate the page for deletion just because another editor said they should. Re: notability, I think this Good article is detailed enough that a merge to Melodrama would place undue weight on this song within the album article. Even though a lot of the sourcing for this article is from album reviews, I think GNG outweighs NSONGS the article should be kept. Also, for context, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Melodrama (Lorde album)/archive1. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't pass WP:NS since "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." Moreover, it fails the three factors listed in the wikipage (charts, awards and covered by notable artists). Response to the above user, anyone, even the creator of the page, can nominate an article for deletion, if he nominated it is due to the fact he agrees with me. It wouldn't place any underweight as most of the information is already on the album article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

article shows it hit the RMNZ chart so "Moreover, it fails the three factors listed in the wikipage (charts, awards and covered by notable artists)." ie. WP:NMUSIC is incorrect. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was not at the time of nomintation. Moreover, charting doesn't mean notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agree, but a bit of WP:BEFORE would not have gone amiss. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't take WP:NMUSIC as a sensible guideline – it would suggest there should not be an article on Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) as a piece of music yet it would allow vast numbers of articles about recordings of it. The extract from this guideline quoted above is unsatisfactory as it will sometimes (as possibly in this case) lead to editorially unsatisfactory guidance. I would defer to WP:N but I think matters such as this should be sorted out on the relevant articles' talk pages and not at AFD. In any case, to have a red link for this song is not a sensible option. Thincat (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sourced to satisfy GNG. Schwede 66 16:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The creator/nominator seems confused about our notability criteria. If a song has adequate independent reliable sources it is notable regardless of whether or not it charted, won awards or has been covered by other artists. Rlendog (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above comments, enough there for WP:GNG. Think the original creator De88 has done a good job on the article. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:03, 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 17:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introvertism

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

Entirely non-notable book - if books were eligible for A7 it would be A7 material. Page is just a book blurb and I'm willing to bet that the page creator is the author. I guess ebooks could be considered "web content" but I think that's stretching the definition a little. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nomination. Also, this was a previously deleted article. This is a self-published book that is being promoted here. Ktin (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a self-published e-book with no evidence of notability. Given the messy and somewhat disruptive editing that's occured, it may be necessary to salt the title. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my vote as the page's technical creator (I welcomed the user on their talk page and they converted it into this article). The page is entirely promotional for self authored book. I also support Dom Kaos idea to salt the page. - Roller26 (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this eligible for a G11 speedy delete? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dom Kaos, I could certainly see an argument for a G11. I thought it was sufficiently borderline that I opted to AfD it instead (sure, it's intended to promote the book, but I didn't see any overtly promotional language - that's my usual standard for G11), but if someone were to speedy it I wouldn't object. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability, It seems a blur now. But, at some point, I had requested a speedy deletion. Did I use the wrong code? Ktin (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ktin, huh, interesting - you did indeed tag this page for deletion, in a sense. There was a previous version of this article which was A7'd by DGG as non-notable web content. I guess that the page creator also created the same page in the Book: namespace, since I moved Book:Introvertism here (as a misplaced article) and then AfD'd it. As I said in the nomination, I think that calling an ebook "web content" is stretching the definition a little (otherwise I would have tagged it for A7 myself), but I'm not going to make a fuss over it. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete E-books have not previously been considered web content. It may just be a technical distinction, but I think ti would need considerable consensus first. I do notthink it fits G11--the purpose is obviously promotional , but the content is descriptive. I think the decision will be clearer as an ordinary delete. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably speedyable; I don't see a notability claim (also, created by a banned sock: G5 speedyable on those grounds). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:10, 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 no consensus. There is no consensus as to whether the sourcing provided is independent or otherwise meets our standards for establishing notability. There is some general consensus that the Central Europe Cup is notable. The idea of changing this article into that can happen outside of AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Central Europe Cup

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

No evidence that this edition is (yet) in any way notable, only sources are primary ones (a Facebook post by one of the participants is not an independent source of course). Previous editions don't give much indication that this one will become notable if and when it happens; if it does, it can be recreated. Fram (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or move to Central Europe Cup) This is reported on the Czech website, not just Facebook. Previous editions were played before the ICC granted official Twenty20 International status to all matches between its members in 2019. If this page is not suitable then neither are many others within the Cricket group. The only reason this one has been noticed is that someone originally created the article prior to the proper announcements. Bs1jac (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Czech website is the website of the organisers, again not an independent source. If the ICC has now granted Twenty20 International Status to these matches, then the importance of that designation has been diminished greatly, as these are some of the smallest cricket playing countries. Of the 85 countries with T20 ranking, the highest-placed in this tournament is Austria (rank 38), and the lowest is Malta (rank 78, only Gibraltar at 79 is lower placed in Europe). This is not a prestigious tournament between major cricket countries, with lots of media attention; but instead a small tournament between amateur sides, with so far no media attention at all. Fram (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multi-national tournament confirmed by several cricket boards, including the first international matches scheduled to be played by the Czech Republic team. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You meant in. Czechs play T20Is before. Human (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes, in Czech, not by Czech. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per User:Bs1jac and User:Lugnuts' comments. And most probably the nominator needs to see that other associate international tournament articles have already been created. They didn't have any issues this shouldn't either. Human (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can also confirm that i understant at least two third-party articles are imminent. Bs1jac (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, no actual reasons for creating or keeping this article at the moment as far as Wikipedia rules are goes, just "we like it" and some crystal balling? Not surprising, I have to say. And a creator with a clear WP:COI apparently to boot. Fram (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF and I don't need to remind you of WP:NPA. As already detailed, there's plenty of coverage from the respective cricket boards of this international multi-team tournament. So that would meet WP:GNG. And as for crystal balling - WP:CRYSTAL clearly states, at point 1, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Which is the case here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks? That someone who somehow knows that "at least two third-party articles are imminent" has a COI as they are clearly involved somehow with the organisation? As for AGF, perhaps you and Human could have noted here that you have been WP:CANVASSed to come here by the creator? Fram (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attack is the COI claim. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an aspersion when evidence is provided. Knowing beforehand that multiple articles are imminent, knowing beforehand that Emerging Cricket will post an article, is evidence of a COI, and not a personal attack. Feel free to take it to ANI if you want to insist that it is one, I don't think you will get a positive response though. Fram (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is an aspersion. You didn't expand on that COI when you made it. I'm sure if I had done that to you in that context, it would be you heading to ANI to report me. Of course E/C would eventually write about it - that's what they do. Write about Associate cricket. Anyone who knows anything about Associate cricket could guess that one. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I only take you to ANI when you make "real" personal attacks, as was concluded there. When someone writes "Can also confirm that i understant at least two third-party articles are imminent." and the reply to that is that the author apparently has a clear COI, then what expansion did you expect? People generally don't know that "two third party articles are imminent" unless they have a close connection to the organisation (or the articles). Fram (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You clearly stated "and a creator with a clear WP:COI apparently to boot" An obvious attack and/or aspersion. Saying "two third party articles are imminent" isn't a COI - it's from someone with knowledge of the subject area, and knows that third-party coverage will happen, as it's a international multi-team tournament. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have literally no affiliation with any cricket board or reporting group. I 'knew' the EC article was on its way because they always cover these official tournaments within hours of a press release going out. It's also called doing some research... I watched a live stream of a tournament at the weekend during which the commentator (who was a rep from Czech Cricket) mentioned this forthcoming event, so I dropped them a DM asking which teams would be involved as I was interested, and was told that they would be announcing it on Wednesday. You have vastly misjudged if you were so certain that there was any COI. Bs1jac (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the full reply and confirmation of no COI, Bs1jac. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the conflict of interest??? Bs1jac (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the involved cricket boards are independent of the subject; as such coverage on their websites does not contribute anything towards meeting GNG. We need significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The fact that Central Europe Cup does not exist leads me to believe that the competition itself is probably not notable; presuming elevated ICC status automatically establishes notability without seeing any of the necessary coverage violates CRYSTAL. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still maintain that this is a notable tournament. Fully ICC-recognised, multi-national tournament, almost certain to happen, at least one independent ref now in place, with other bound to follow shortly, first ever time such a level of cricket has taken place in Czechia, etc. Unrelated of course, but if you want an example of non-notable, try 2020 Baltic Cup... only 3 fixtures, only refs are from national associations (not even in English), the highest ranked team – Estonia – are currently ranked 104th, and the tournament never happened. But it's football. Not sure what has happened here to WP:NPA and WP:AGF, or what kind of WP:COI you seem to think I have? Totally unreasonable and uncalled for. Bs1jac (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no independent 3rd party source discussing this tournament in depth. One extremely trivial passing mention in the Times of Malta is not enough. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 Baltic Cup is a good example. As are the Pulai Springs Malaysian Masters and the Bristol & District Cricket Association too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not comparable (but of course you're free to nominate any of them for deletion if you so wish). Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Please try to focus on the article at hand. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are comparable, as none of those articles have independent 3rd party source discussing those tournaments in depth. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF says arguments based solely on this idea. The user didn't seem to vote keep for this reason. Human (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the sum total of their arguments in this sub-thread (ignoring the pointy-ness). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worse, that article from the Times of Malta, added by Lugnuts[17] is from 2015 and is invalidly used to reference stuff about 2020. The one-sentence mention isn't about the 2020 Cup at all. Fram (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that was a bad example and a mistake from the editor. I have removed it. Bs1jac (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This has been a notable annual international cricket tournament for at least five years, and is scheduled for another addition this year according to reputable international cricket news organisation, Emerging Cricket. ^[1] If anything, its elevation to ICC accredited T20I status makes it even more notable. Conversely, soccer articles on Island Games or Conifa World Cup are non-FIFA accredited events, but have articles, and rightly so. Agermeister 15:39, 2 September 2020 (EST)
A very clearly independent news article, specifically on this event, now referenced. Sure more will follow shortly. Bs1jac (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One article, with little depth. Much more is needed to satisfy GNG, etc. and crystal-ball assertions of future coverage don't mean anything. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another independent source is now in (Cricket Europe), with more depth than the first. Bs1jac (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another... Bs1jac (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that article creator Bs1jac has WP:CANVASSed the first two keep votes, Lugnuts and Human (see User talk:Lugnuts#Central Europe Cup and User talk:A Simple Human/Archive 1#Central Europe Cup. Fram (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We would both have found this AfD in anycase, due to the subject matter. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So? That doesn't make it any less canvassing. Fram (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Lugnuts to look as he is one of the key expert in the field, makes an incredible number of contributions to content and discussions (including deletion of content where necessary) etc. This clearly falls within Appropriate Notification. Why so aggressive? Bs1jac (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (weak support for a move & rewrite to Central Europe Cup) per my comments above; a single source of limited depth is entirely insufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. At present, it seems far more likely that the tournament itself (i.e. Central Europe Cup) is notable – it would therefore be reasonable for an article to be created for that, which would include summaries of each edition. This article could then be merged rather than deleted. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are now at least three separate independent sources out there (in addition to the primary source official announcements). Bs1jac (talk)

Czar sports doesn't work for me, and apart from EC all the others seem like official, primary sources, no? Fram (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging Cricket, Cricket Europe and Czar Sports are not primary sources. These are all independent cricket news outlets. Czar Sports isn't the best... they have some really good content, but the site does cause some people problems from time to time. Bs1jac (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket Europe is the website of the European Cricket Council and thus not an independent source wrt a cricket tournament between (or with) European national teams. Perfect for reliable information, but doesn't give any notability for this tournament. Fram (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. Scroll to the foot of any page at Cricket Europe, click on the contact us link and it clearly states "Please note that CricketEurope is an independent cricket site". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Cricket Europe is NOT affiliated with ICC Europe or the ECC. Bs1jac (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything in those sources that goes beyond regurgitating the press release by Czech Cricket [18]. Sorry. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you want a source that provides more detail than is known? Multiple independent sources feel that the event is worth announcing. Bs1jac (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of coverage we should expect for an imminent notable tournament is a full tournament preview (not just reporting an announcement/press release), team/player profiles, interviews, etc. We have none of this. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then it sounds like we need to delete hundreds/thousands of articles (e.g. 2020 Open de Rennes has no ref at all, and there are dozens of these alone per year). Back to the subject though, we seem to be stuck at the what makes an event notable impasse. If a fully sanctioned international competition is not notable, in a sport that is growing rapidly across the world, especially now that the ICC has fully acknowledged the right for the game to be recognised outside of 10-12 nations (in t20 format at least), then I really don't know what is. Elitism? Or is it just that it's a forthcoming event rather a completed event with a summary available that is the issue? Bs1jac (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFF again) There is no need to postulate about subversive reasons. The way we establish notability is through significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and in this case we simply don't have that. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)To take that example: referencing in the article doesn't matter (though it would be much better if these were included), what matters is whether good sources exist. For the 2020 Open de Rennes, there is e.g. this article from France Info (TV channel)[19], which is a general news source, not a highly specialized website , and which gives more than just a regurgitated official announcement. We have articles from Le Télégramme(regional but general newspaper). We have articles in 20 minutes (France), a general newspaper aimed at the whole of France[20][21]. And then there are the general sports magazines and sites, like Sportmag.fr[22]. All of these have more specific coverage about the tournament than what we have so far for the Central Europe Cup, and at the same time are more general sources (there are also countless tennis-only sources with info on the 2020 Rennes Open, compared to the 2 or 3 cricket-specific sites we have here, and the total lack so far of coverage in either general sources or even generic sport sources).

Notability is not decided by what the sanctioning body does, nor by how fast a sport is supposed to be growing, but by the attention general sources give it. They may be missing out on something that should get coverage, or they may represent the actual interest this sport generates in the countries involved, but in the end neither matters, we simply reflect the end result. Now, it may be that in the next few weeks, this will get the necessary coverage for an article: but it should have been created only then, not earlier. (This is less of a problem for upcoming events which have generated plenty of coverage in previous years, but for a new event or one that didn't get much attention previously, one should wait until it is truly and clearly notable, not simply presume that it will happen). Fram (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather:, To clarify my understanding, you want this article to be deleted now and then created again just couple of days when the actual tournament starts or you want this to be deleted permanently? mitratanmoy 15:22 , 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Please note: the tournament starting is absolutely irrelevant, as this is not an inherently notable recurring event. If (and only if) substantial independent coverage emerges in reliable 3rd party sources later would I support an article being created/undeleted (although my preference would be for a main article in the first instance). But right now, coverage is not even close to meeting the threshold (see WP:TOOSOON & WP:NSPORTSEVENT). Further, if that main article existed, I would currently support a merge rather than deletion (or possibly moving this article and rewriting/expanding as a main article). It could also be merged into Associate international cricket in 2020–21, where most of the content seem to be duplicated already; I would support that too. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, that is where I had previously redirected the page after another editor created his page way too soon (before the event had even been announced other than during online streaming commentary of another event). I then recreated the page once a primary announcement was available and with secondary sources close behind. If the deletion is upheld (despite at least two valid secondary sources), that would be my preferred redirect until a later date when more details are written. At least we are being balanced and constructive now rather than making huge assumptions and/or misunderstandings. Bs1jac (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. International T20 tournament, meets WP:CRIN and involves the national cricket teams of several countries. As long as the status of the matches are satisfied, I'm more than happy to see this kept. StickyWicket (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CRIN is (currently) not an accepted notability guideline. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cant find any valid reason for this page to be deleted. mitratanmoy 10:58 , 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The principal reason has been clearly expressed above – zero in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as required by our notability guidelines. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And those false claims that the sources are not independent of the subject have been debunked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting one aspect to refute (independence of the sources, and even then, only in relation to one of them) while disregarding the substantive argument is a classic strawman. We still have zero substantial, in-depth coverage. Anywhere. And certainly not in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's been the crux of the argument from you and Fram, which have clearly been disproven. They are reliable and independent, which have been stated above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any indication who is behind "cricketeurope", there are no names of persons or organisations involved in it at all as far as I can see. The website is said to be the official website of European Cricket Council, but a) I can't verify (or debunk) it, and b) that organisation itself is very hard to find any info on, does it even exist any longer? So we have "Emerging cricket", a new website of unknown reliability or importance, then we have the one-person website czarsports (usually unavailable), and the rather obscure cricketeurope. That's not even adressing the lack of indepth, actual reporting, instead of rephrased announcements of what will happen. Compare this with e.g. the sources available for the 2020 Open de Rennes (example not introduced by me but discussed above), a small tennis tournament of little importance: there we have both general news sources (with actual reporting), and general sports magazines, removing the need to go to obscure sport-specific sources to try to claim some notability. If an event only gets attention in such sources, then you can hardly claim that it a notable event. Fram (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't find any indication who is behind "cricketeurope"" - So why make false and mis-leading claim saying "Cricket Europe is the website of the European Cricket Council.. " ? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging cricket isn't of unknown reliability. Many cricket boards include the Scottish or Irish one mention their coverage or retweet them. They have perhaps the best coberage of any associate cricket news. Also you claiming cricketeurope as the website of ECC is not proven and is false. Human (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is given as the website of the ECC at our own article about it, like I said multiple times already. I thought the cricket editors would be up to date with this kind of thing, for an important organisation like the ECC, but it turns out that the ECC is not important but hardly visible or notable (does it even exist any longer), and that trusting a cricket article will only lead to scorn from cricket editors. Fram (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It is given as the website of the ECC at our own article about it" So you used WP as your WP:RS without actually double-checking first before making a false statement. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Says the editor who added a 2015 source to this article, pretending that it was from 2020 and about this tournament...? That website has no information at all about who it is by (owned, made, supported, ...). I gave it the benefit of the doubt based on a cricket article we have, since our cricket editors are so knowledgeable and trustworthy. Apparently I have to trust your word about whicjh sites are reliable or not. Anyway, apparently CricketEurope used to be the official site of the ECC, but since the ECC no longer exists they continued on their own. Or so it seems, because, like I said, they are extremely secretive about who or what they are, which is not a good indication of being a reliable site at all. Fram (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say (and I don't claim to be in the know on this), my understanding from others is that CE at some point in history may have had some kind of partnership with ECC. I don't think they were ever the 'official site' as such, but were essentially covering their tournaments. All historic now, but thought I would mention. Bs1jac (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts and Fram: I think that's enough of the ad hominems. The focus needs to be on the article only, and the issue of lack of coverage to meet GNG, EVENT, etc. Even if the sources we have met some gold standard of independence and reliability, the coverage remains limited to rephrased press releases and incidental mentions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"apparently CricketEurope used to be the official site of the ECC" - source? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant. Drop the stick or take it elsewhere. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"again, another false statement"? [23] See also this one which makes it even more obvious. Fram (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, false. That is for cricketeurope.net, the (live) site is cricketeurope.com. Do you also still maintain the COI claims too? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember when you claimed that every page of CricketEurope.com made it clear at the bottom of the page that they were an independent site? ~~Not completely true, that claim was on the "contact us" page which you could reach from the bottom of the page.~~ Have you actually read that contact page? "You may contact CricketEurope at office@cricketeurope.net." CricketEurope.com, CricketEurope.net, and CricketEurope4.net are all the same site. Can we please go back to discussing the merits of the article and its sources and stop this stupid timewaster? Fram (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really wanting to get involved any more, but to be fair he did say "Scroll to the foot of any page at Cricket Europe, click on the contact us link and it clearly states" Bs1jac (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I misread that. Struck that part now, thanks. Fram (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption of this AfD needs to stop now. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the status of CricketEurope. (notice of self-interest here as I am part of the CE team) CricketEurope is not, nor has it ever been, the official website of any cricket organisation. It has always been editorially independent. The parent company of CricketEurope, UlsterWeb, did previously provide the official websites of the now non-existent European Cricket Council, ICC Europe and select other European national governing bodies in addition to several official tournament websites (ECC, ICC Europe and ICC). These sites were constructed using the same in-house CMS as the main CricketEurope website (and in some cases had cricketeurope URLs because their web administrators didn't do whatever they needed to do to have the URL bar show their own website domain) but were nonetheless independent from it. We have had nothing to do with ICC since 2010 and nothing to do with ICC Europe since 2013. Anyway, it's been nice reading this to remind me of why I quit contributing to Wikipedia. Have fun. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up, Andrew. So Cricket Europe is clearly independent and reliable, and not as others have claimed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, circling back to the key issue: where is the substantial coverage (that isn't just a rehash of a press release)? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The tournament as a whole is notable, but each individual instance is not. Wikipedia is not Wisden. I would encourage the participants in this AFD to be very considerably more succinct in any additional contributions they are planning to make out of courtesy to the closer. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and rewrite to be about the Central Europe Cup. Most of the content is already background and we could have a decent stub on the cup itself if the group stage and playoffs section are cut, so this won't be too hard at all. It seems to me that the cup itself is notable and we can have a subsection on each year, if desired. Not seeing clear notability of each year-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this comment. I am considering how best to do this. I do have links to results from previous editions so could put something together if this route is agreed on. Perhaps a table showing teams that competed in each edition, and their finishing positions, etc. I do think the notability of the 2020 edition onwards (with official ICC status) will become apparent over the next few weeks when the press in at least a couple of the nations publishes either previews or summaries. Bs1jac (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I have almost finished a draft of Central Europe Cup via my sandbox, similar to the exiting page on the South American Cricket Championship. Would be happy to replace the content and move this page to that new title, or to create that page separately if this one should be left and deleted (not sure of the protocol); depending on consensus. Bs1jac (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wait until this is closed? Per my comments above, I'd support a move & rewrite to Central Europe Cup; articles for individual editions can then follow if sufficient substantial coverage emerges. (I've amended my !vote above accordingly) _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my proposed alternative via a commented out section at the end of the article. I think this content is at least in line with other such international tournaments such as South American Cricket Championship and more so than regional amateur domestic leagues such as Bristol & District Cricket Association and Kent Cricket League. Just trying to provide options. (also amended by vote accordingly) Bs1jac (talk) 08:21, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unees-Bees

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

Non notable film, tagged for 9 years. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Obviously there will not be much online coverage as it's a 80s movie. The time period when Unees-Bees was released it was an era of print media and electronic media was emerging gradually. it's possible that there might be offline coverage out there. The film had some of the greatest Indian actors including Mithun Chakraborty, Rakesh Roshan, Kader Khan and singers like Mohammed Rafi, Anuradha Paudwal, Udit Narayan.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Umakant Bhalerao, the actors they might be notable, but is the film? Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited. We do not just assume notability based on notable actors, we require actual sourced showing reviews etc. There is no requirement to find these online. I would however point out that truly impactful and major works get mentioned in scholarly sources, and so as we have seen in a discussion of a film made about 1920, it is actually possible to find sourcing online for films made 100 years ago. We do not defer to claims that finding sourcing would be too hard, since Wikipedia is built on verrifiability. We require actual sourcing to be demonstrated. There is no requirement that sources be found online.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The film is the Bollywood debut of an iconic singer (proof) so please reconsider. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definite failure of WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 11:18, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Zakrzewski

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not mandatory to proof notability in English, other languages are also allowed. The Banner talk 09:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is saying non-English sources are not allowed, of course they are (per WP:NOENG). Your comment is irrelevant to the issue discussed (lack of notability) which makes it a strawman argument~and the rest leaves just pure WP:NOTAVOTE... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - To quote your own words: (...) did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on (...). That suggests that you did not perform a proper WP:BEFORE. The Banner talk 10:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And not everyone gets a listing in Forbes, even when it is Forbes Poland. That source is quite independent and reliable. The Banner talk 11:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seriously, this one is no brainer delete. -GizzyCatBella🍁 06:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: are there sources in other languages? If so, they should be added/mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the reliable sources seem to be about people and companies for whom he works, not him. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kuiljeit Uppaal

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

I have the gravest reservations about this article. The subject is very much convinced that she is an "inspirational polymath" and "First Image Scientist in the World!".[24]

The major cites in the article are what seem to me to be an entry in a dubious/nn book of records, for being the "First Image Scientist in the World!", and a dubious "GENIUS POLYMATH OF THE YEAR" from her local Genius Society; and then a fluffy press article about her polymathic genius predicated on one or other of the above. No very good ghits. Wikipedia co-opted for PR. Tagishsimon (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see this is a recreation of a page already deleted as unambiguous promotion. That’s what it still is. Mccapra (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. An egregiously promotional article about a non-notable academic. I have no idea what an "image scientist" is but it sounds like a vague marketing term rather than a formal discipline. There's absolutely no evidence of anything that would pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a rather frustrating article for me. I edited it heavily to remove the fluff and promotional tone then published it from AfC but the original editor keeps coming back to it and putting the fluff and promotional tone back into it. I think she is notable enough for WP but if it can't be maintained as an objective article then it can't be kept. MurielMary (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm puzzled by what you see in the article, MM. I've seen you turn down plenty of AfCs that seem more obviously notable than this article. We have three really dubious sources here, and then a single source (repeated) confirming her connection with the Women’s Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Researchgate points to 4 publications. Neither GNG nor NACADEMIC appear to be met. What are we missing? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Dom Kaos and Mccapra: I created this article because this woman was the first person in the world to ever become an image scientist, an area I am building an expertise in. I also want to create an article for image science as well, hence the reason to have an article for this woman. I did see that there are certain users vandalising the page and turning it into something promotional, which was never my intention. But I just ask the community to have some sort of clemency as this article is very important and is the first of many I want to create related to this subject. Since the page is being vandalised, shouldn't this be the case to either protect it or block the users vandalising it? I really do not wish to see this page getting deleted again. It was already so hard reaching the current stage. Thank you! Bad Boy97 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What is image science, Bad Boy97, and in what sense is she the first image scientist? Who, apart from her and her Genius Society / Book of Records people, confirms that she is the first image scientist? Forgive me for saying so, but the claim sounds like absolute, utter and complete nonsense. We have no DoB, but from the photo she is perhaps 40 or younger. We check out Imaging science and find, for instance, Joseph P. Hornak, Encyclopedia of Imaging Science and Technology (John Wiley & Sons, 2002) - i.e. published when she was 22 or thereabouts. It's easy to find academic papers on image analysis going back 30 and more years [25]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wondered about the ‘image science’ bit too, before realising she’s not claiming to have invented tomography, but to have invented a ‘science’ of the personal image, i.e. how one dresses/presents oneself and manages one’s online presence, psychometrics, all of which she has bundled into an entity she’s called ‘image science.’ Once that was clear it was evident that all the claims and sources in the article are promotional. I’ve looked at the ‘clean’ version accepted by MurielMary and while it’s less obviously promotional the claims to genuine notability are still thin - a doctorate from a pretty scary-looking university (btw if she genuinely invented ‘image science’ how can she have a doctorate in it? Who supervised her?) co-authoring a book, receiving a non-notable award and chairing a committee for the WICCI. I agree with Tagishsimon that this article is an attempt to co-opt Wikipedia for PR. Mccapra (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass any of the criteria for a notable academic WP:NACADEMIC. Google scholar shows that her papers have been cited only 15 times since 2015 [26]. Does not pass WP:GNG either. Agree the article seems promotional. Netherzone (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguously promotional, plausible WP:CSD#G11 speedy. No valid claim to academic notability. Her claims to have invented the academic study of image management also do not hold water, as this topic has been studied at least since the 1970s. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if G11 applies. It's a promotional bio-blurb, with no evidence that WP:PROF or any other standard is passed. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria. I did wonder if could pass anything under WP:AUTHOR as books are mentioned, but for for instance https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811033186 I'm not convinced of the level of her involvement. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to passing WP:NPROF or WP:GNG, sources are pure PR. Her most highly cited paper has 3 citations. Spicy (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly claims and fails NPROF. "I'm a polymath" is not a reason to be on Wikipedia, and in 2020, everybody knows that. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gavar Special School

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

It appears to be a non notable school. I can’t find references to show this is a notable school. I checked Google and it has a bunch of blogs about the school. Zoe1013 (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

11:20, 25 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 14:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we should not have unsourced articles last 14 days, let alone 14 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG - a single news article about it is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 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 delete. Izno (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmersbach

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Refs are mix of blogs and press releases. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These [27] [28] are not press releases, they are full write-ups in an independent newspaper (Nürnberger Nachrichten). Multiple winner of a statewide ministerial prize does carry some weight. Quite some overlap of other material with the multiply embattled Hemmersbach Rhino Force, but I don't think WP:NOTINHERITED applies (notability is not just based on the rhino thing). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is another full-write ups from indepedant, reputable newspaper [29]. BR is Bavaria's public broadcasting service with 8 million listeners each day and did a dedicated interview on Hemmersbach's CEO, Ralph Koczwara [30]. Admittedly, the rhino story was one focus but equally so was Hemmersbach. I did include some blogs and press releases which I am happy to remove if wished by Wiki editors? Even if these articles were removed there would be no grounds for WP:ORGIND and [[WP:CORPDEPTH] due to variation of independent sources (ZDF, Nordbayern, South China Morning Post, BR, FairPlanet, Nurnberger Nachricthen etc). - MichaelDubley (talk) )02:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first two post are write-ups. Where is the clarification for the first post. If it was notable, where is the additional write-ups in other established sources. The second one is PR with the owner smiling and telling folk about how he grew up, took his company from 20 people to the size it is now. Classic PR, as a company originating story. You see it all the time. It well known advertising pattern. Both of them look like classic PR. All the photographs from Rhino force are all copyright Hemmersbach, indicating PR. If it genuine they would photographer doing the work. More PR. The third references [31] states its a sponsored article in the lede. Also a press-release. We will go through the references. I'll go through the references one by one. scope_creep^Talk 11:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Scope Creep, please allow me to answer your comment here. I, unfortunately, don't understand 'Where is the clarification for the first post.'. If you could kindly explain the post you mean I would be happy to try answer that for you? In regard to the additional write-ups you mention, I would classify the six distinct news organizations as this and they are as follows ZDF, Nordbayern, South China Morning Post, BR, FairPlanet, Nurnberger Nachricthen. If there is a hard rule for how many are required for a wiki-article then please direct me to it and I would be happy to make appropriate edits. The BR interview [32] is not a press release but an interview with an established journalist from a reputable radio organization. You are correct the line of questioning regards the companies originating story but as Hemmersbach was invited on the show it is not a press release. The show must be sponsored however not by Hemmersbach or an affiliated organization. You are correct the photos from the Domestic German newspapers (Nürnberger Nachrichten) and NordBayern are supplied by Rhino Force. It is expensive for photographers from a domestic newspaper to send a photographer to Africa and I guess it was a financial decision to use Rhino Force's photos. You can see the photos taken in Nuremberg are by the two domestic German newspaper photographers and not taken by Hemmersbach or Rhino Force [33]. The International journalism organizations used their own photographers, please see the links [34][35][36][37] but I digress as the content that uses Rhino Force as copyright pertains to the Rhino Force wiki page and not this one. For sure if you have any other questions let me know here or on my talk page and I would be happy to discuss so the article is in-line with how you and the editors think is appropriate. Many thanks! - MichaelDubley (talk) )01:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your last article Rhino Force was deleted. Ive also noticed that your Anti-poaching article had a big section of Hemmersbach, which has now been removed. A subject like Anti-poaching is academic not a corporate article and to link it that way is WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. It is also highly WP:PROMO and WP:PUFF. scope_creep^Talk 23:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep:, after reading your links to wiki rules I agree your edits to Anti-poaching make sense. Thank you for your advice! Perhaps you have advice for the Hemmersbach article? It's clear I do not know the wiki world well so I'd appreciate any advice you have time to give. The dream would be to have an article you are satisfied fits wiki rules, would you like me to remove the blog posts? - MichaelDubley (talk) )01:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nürnberger Nachrichten is an esteemed and independent German newspaper, and does seem unrelated to the company in question; as such I do not think that WP:ORGIND applies. I also do not see any blogs cited as sources. However, I can somewhat relate to the sentiment that some parts of the article look somewhat PR'ish - but not to the degree that it would fail WP:PROMO. ParanoidAndroid83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SPA editor, who has made no effective contribution to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, MichaelDubley is complete missing the point of WP:ORGIND by saying that the reference passes because the newspaper "is an esteemed and independent German newspaper". ORGIND is about whether the content of the article meets requirements, not about whether there are any corporate ties between the topic company and the publisher. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point @HighKing: and so obvious that it is intrinsic but still needs to be stated. I'll keep it in mind. scope_creep^Talk 21:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi @Elmidae: Do you think the article is genuinely notable? scope_creep^Talk 15:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say so. Not massively, but the indicated newspaper coverage is genuine, not promo features; and as I said, I think winning those prizes carries some weight. I have certainly seen other corporate articles pass with this kind coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are not notable. They are awards for business growth. Even the fastest growing company as a criteria, is super tenuous at best, and mostly generic in nature. It is everywhere. scope_creep^Talk 23:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi @Scope creep:, I saw you made changes to the article. I like two of the changes you made to remove the youtube video, linkedin article and blog post. Thanks for that! I saw you also removed the section on the award that Elmidae thought added weight to the articles worth. I would ask you to please keep this section so it is acknowledged when the admin reviews the page for deletion. Since yourself and Elmidae + myself are in a disagreement over whether the award section is notable I think we should leave it for the admin to decide. - MichaelDubley (talk) )08:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on that. Mentioning this type of award is pretty standard in company articles; and as you should know notability guidelines per se don't apply to material in articles, only to the article subject as a whole. I have reinserted the paragraph. This is a point that is separate from the overall assessment we are trying to reach here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: would benefit from some more input from uninvolved users
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference mentioned in the article or at this AfD meets the criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP. We require multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. What we have are a series of puff pieces and PR which fail the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I went through the citations I began to wonder if this was an IT company or a social/environmental activist organization. Nice that they are good corporate citizens but none of that explains why this company meets WP:SIRS. In picking just two the South China Morning Post citation is paid placement where the end of the article carries the disclaimer, “views and opinions expressed are those of the sponsor..”. The IHK Nürnberg für English language site doesn’t return anything about them the company name is ran through a search. Page creating editor may be a single-purpose account as there are few contributions that are unrelated to this article. Blue Riband► 04:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having read the above discussion and the sources for the article, I think it should be deleted. The sources, in spite of being mainly in reliable publications, are too complimentary of the company to demonstrate clear-cut independent content. This is why I think the company is a WP:ORGCRITE/WP:COMPANY fail. Their mention in an FT list is good but not significant coverage. Overall, this has the look of a really good PR drive. I would change my mind if several pieces of disinterested coverage in secondary sources were to surface. With regard to MichaelDubley, his contributions list does nothing to assuage concerns that the account is a WP:SPA. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. There were concerns, which have been dealt with, and that's all I can really say about that. Primefac (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daeco Andrian

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

Non-notable person. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 14:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete a7/g11. This fails every single criteria and doesn't need to go through AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7, as done already a few times today.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why is the speedy an emergency? I cannot see the article since it seems to have been deleted with alacrity. Lightburst (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Viewable in the abuse log: [38] – Thjarkur (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Question: How was this page deleted a second time without the deletion appearing in the logs?) – Thjarkur (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Þjarkur It was oversighted for reasons that should be obvious given you saw it in the abuse log, which you should also remove the link to. Praxidicae (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've OS'd the log anyway, but thanks for the offline ping Prax, didn't see this was at AFD. Primefac (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[facepalm] Can't believe I missed that aspect of it. Thank you both above. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:51, 2 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. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffa Shrine Center

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

Fails WP:NBUILD. It is a large arena, but there is no WP:SIGCOV I can see that would establish notability; hits are namedrops or WP:ROUTINE coverage in local media. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: per the below, this building appears to be better known (at least in the past) as "Jaffa Mosque". (To be clear, it is in Altoona, Pennsylvania, not Jaffa.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems unlikely that such a substantial and distinctive building would pass unnoticed. It is one of the largest arenas in Pennsylvania and has hosted numerous concerts, circuses, wrestling and other events. It seems easy to turn up coverage such as this. And the worst case would be merger into a page such as Altoona or the List of Shrine Centers. It seems simplest and easiest to leave it as is for development and expansion per WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That book refers to the "Jaffa Mosque". For my edification and that of other commenters, is that an alternative name for the "Jaffa Shrine Center"? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm British and so am not familiar with the Shriners, which are an American institution. So, I took the trouble to find out more about them and this place in particular. Yes, it's the same place. Now the nominator is expected to inform themselves about a topic before wasting our time with such nominations. Here's the drill:

WP:BEFORE

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:

A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines

The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion as well as alternatives to deletion and the various deletion processes
The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, with further related essays at Category:Wikipedia notability. Common outcomes may be checked to see if other articles on a specific topic tend to be kept or deleted after an AfD discussion

B. Carry out these checks

Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep.
If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)
Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
Check to see if enough time has passed since previous nominations before renominating.
Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede.

C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.
If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.
If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.

D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability

The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate.
If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}. For a more complete list see WP:CTT.

Which of these steps has been done? Andrew🐉(talk) 16:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson I searched all the web sources I could find, and found next to no coverage for "Jaffa Shrine Center". "Jaffa Mosque" is not an obvious alternative name for "Jaffa Shrine Center". If it turns out that it refers to the same building, and that there's significant coverage under that name, great, and I'll happily withdraw this nomination. Fwiw, a quick glance revealed some additional hits under that name. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:26, 25 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 13:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the coverage which exists from 1930-present regarding the two names of this building. Passes WP:GEOFEAT with social and architectural importance. Not RS but Amazon is selling a postcard from when this was a mosque in 1950. Lightburst (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, Mind providing some links? I could not find significant coverage myself under either of the two names—mostly routine event announcements. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage in old newsprint like the Altoona Mirror (1930) 1930 Jaffa dedication ceremony. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 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. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Bhalla

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

non-notable actress notable only for her single role in Jane The Virgin. This should be deleted and redirected to the cast list as she has done nothing of note aside from this and the sources fail our criteria for BLPs. Praxidicae (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one role is not enough to show an actress is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mical

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, I found no reliable reviews and barely any sourcing at all. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-04 ✍️ create, 2007-10 ✗ CSD R1

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no reviews in place then I can only agree that this needs to be deleted as per NFILM and GNG Spiderone 15:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article was created by an editor whose activity focus is the production company and films of Darius Shu, though with no disclosed connection. In the case of this new film, searches are not finding better than routine listings and a brief user-submitted review. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, but I am seeing no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy withdrawn. Convinced by the many arguments brought to my attention, like for example the ones by Alvaldi and BabbaQ. (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auroracoin

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

notability not established, article full of original research, it was covered only isolated and as a novelty in reputable media, this could be a list item, but a full article is not warranted Ysangkok (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It had considerable reporting in the Icelandic media [39][40][41][42][43][44]. Alvaldi (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per extensive media reporting above. Per sourcing. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 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 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 12:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regiane Andrade

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

The one source here is not even indepdent enough to add towards passing GNG, and one source is never enough to pass GNG. A search for additional sourcing comes up with basically nothing. I found in formation on a Regiane de Andrade who is a medical doctor and researcher, and a few other leads. There is an IMDb article on a TV actress who clearly is not notable, and who there is no indication is the same person John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 21:36, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Monique

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)

I don't see coverage to meet WP:GNG, and just being a backup singer for a famous singer, releasing some music (of no note) and being in one documentary doesn't a notable person make, and certainly doesn't make a pass of WP:MUSICBIO. Perhaps a redirect to Beyoncé#Music_videos_and_stage or 20 Feet From Stardom is in order? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the end she is just a backup singer, and we have no clear signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MeetsWP:MUSICBIO guidelines. She is a notable public figure, has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself - including TLC featuring her as a music artist back in 2005 on "A Baby Story", an EP and various singles released and licensed by major sports organizations worldwide including the NBA, ESPN. She's also a brand ambassador for various brands including Focusrite [2], Apogee, Sparkpeople [3], No7 Cosmetics and more. Notable figure, but needs more of that information listed here to give this article more meat and credibility. She also holds 5 Grammy certificates for her participation in various nomminated and award winning movies and performances. Article may need improving, but any quick search will pprove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weddingdock (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC) — Weddingdock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure how to improve the article directly, but I noticed from a news search there were several dedicated pieces covering her cancer scare. [45], [46] Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be redirected separately if desired. Sandstein 11:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 United Arab Emirates explosions

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

Fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage of the incident benefited from the recent Beirut explosion and the fact that fatalities involved foreigners. However this pale in comparison with the historic Lebanon explosion. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are a number of articles on Google news, etc, all relevant to these explosions. However, there is little if any notability beyond the these explosions to merit a separate article. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to List of 21st-century explosions Cerberon-900 (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:EVENTCRIT per WP:LASTING and the coverage it does have is not WP:INDEPTH (sadly these events have become routine). WP:NOTNEWS. // Timothy :: talk 17:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Felix

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

Cross-wiki spam removed from hiwiki. The person is not notable as well, in my opinion. Please review. Bencemac (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly sourced at the moment, and appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO, with only passing mentions of him in the reliable sources cited. His claimed "associated act" status with Yo Yo Honey Singh and DJ Snake is weak, the only evidence being the photo taken of him with YYHS in the infobox, and a passing mention of him in another article saying he likes DJ Snake's music. The only significant coverage of him I can find of him in RS online is in this Mid Day article: [47]. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Captain Calm (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the in depth review of the references but as I found This which I feel is above the mark of weak ref and this made me search more about him and create the article, as there are other refs too like [48] This on The Times of India and others are there too, But I guess the Mid Day isn't considered as reliable but other refs which are cited have more thn passing mentions about him on them, ThanksDtt1^Talk 10:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability requirements with current citations. 5/9 sources are images with no notable information, one is a self-written bio, another is a link to a track list. Therefore 7/9 fail WP:RS. Scan of telegraph India stub independent, but does not provide enough information for the basis of an article. Millennium post article longer and more detailed, but 1–2 recent posts not enough to establish notability per WP:N. XVDC (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Passes WP:GNG. The mid day article and the milennium post article constitute significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. W 42 13:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Praxidicae. I missed that disclaimer on the mid-day article. W 42 18:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder. The article isn’t very well written at the moment - literally just says he exists and basically nothing else. Would the article be better if it was expanded upon? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Foxnpichu yeah the article can be expanded as per the available sources.Dtt1^Talk 01:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~In that case, I'm going to say Keep, as it looks like he has enough significant coverage to warrant an article. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
Probably best to move to Delete after realising the sources are not as good as thought. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and expand as per substantial coverage in reliable sources such as Telegraph of India and Midday, that shows a pass of WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC) struck vote as refs were not independent enough Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is yet more puffed up PR nonsense. this is a two sentence write up, this is just nonsense and this mid-day piece is partnered content (ie. brand content) This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever which leaves us with Millenium Post which doesn't even have a by-line and appears to be paid for PR. Praxidicae (talk) 17:34, 1 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 12:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all the sources on the article and on the net that I could find were either PR coverage or non-significant coverage. He is trying to WP:INHERENT by associating acts with other notable musicians. - Roller26 (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a source to promote people who are not notable. At least it is not supposed to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 20:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:39, 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. Can be restored to draft via WP:REFUND by anybody who wants to work on it. Sandstein 10:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rumbos malditos

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

Non notable film with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search except film database sites and blogs. Seems to fail WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles should not last sourced only to IMDb for 13 days, let alone 13 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Notable enough but there is virtually no content or context. Should be expanded first. Batmanthe8th (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above, but relevant WikiProject should be tagged so that they can improve it. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If it is notable enough to merit keeping or draftifying, sources should be presented that establish that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, Article has no content so it needs work. Alex-h (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Curious as to why everyone is saying Draftify when they haven't presented a single source to merit keeping the article. What good is Draftifying the article if there is nothing to support it even if it gets expanded and republished? Presenting the sources now seems a better choice. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with draftifying if someone in this discussion is volunteering to work on the draft and get it back into mainspace. It's not a good idea to draftify articles this old unless they're being actively worked on because they will just be deleted after six months anyway so it's deletion by the back door. I can't find any RIS to support this article and nobody else seems to have either, so unless anyone comes up with anything in this discussion my vote is Delete. Mccapra (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Academic Friends of Israel

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

"International Academic Friends of Israel" gives a total of 846 hits on Google. The organization's website is overtaken by squatters. Book search produces nothing substantial at all. Not sure this now defunct organization should be chronicled in Wikipedia. ImTheIP (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ImTheIP (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am finding some sources. Times of Israel 1, Haaretz 2, Inside Higher Ed 2 (Passing mention), This is about all I have found so i am not ready to !vote. Lightburst (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Struggling to see notability. Number 5 7 09:16, 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 no consensus. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark

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

This is the 3rd nomination of this person, but the first discussion led to a decision to delete, the second was to keep. Consensus is now moving in favour of deleting these sorts of articles about minor members of former royal families with no serious claim to notability. PatGallacher (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. DrKay (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage on him, besides trivial lifestyle news. The article is mosty a list of his relatives, apparently because there isn't anything substantial to write. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and should not have article on people who only get covered in tabloids or lifestyle sections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in and focus of articles from multiple reliable sources that are not fashion or tabloid StellarHalo (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
StellarHalo, would you care to highlight one of those articles? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one from The Business Insider that is already being used as one of the citations. Also covered in The Huffington Post. Also some Greek sources: 1, 2 StellarHalo (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I gave delete on the deletion requests for many royalty spam articles, but this one is different. First of all, being a member of a deposed royal family with enough multiple reliable sources and some sources in Greece grants WP:GNG. Second of all, he is also the future head of the deposed Greek royal family and is referenced in reliable sources. VocalIndia (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is just about enough information to establish WP:GNG. Prince Constantine Alexios is the eldest son and heir to Prince Pavlos which makes him an important member of the House of Glücksburg. The Hellenic Throne may be defunct but the House is still very much in existence. TheRedDomitor (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per TheRedDomitor, and there are sufficient coverage in reliable sources, and is an important member of the House of Glücksburg. 103.200.134.151 (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the two above. The subject in question has been cited in both primary and secondary reliable sources. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , being "heir" to a nonexistent position does not make someone notable. The rest of the article is just a list of his relatives.Smeat75 (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are two positions in question here. The prince is still present in the Danish line of succession, which exists currently. Sunshine1191 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment He is not in the line of succession to the Danish throne, as his 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) 04:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Follow-up: It is true that the Danish line of succession is limited to descendants of Christian X, but as a descendant of King Christian IX he is still a minor Danish prince, entitled to the style of Highness.^[2] Also, stressing once more on the fact that it is the Greek Throne that has been deposed, the two hundred year old House of Glücksburg still exists. TheRedDomitor (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Charmk (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Prince Constantine Alexios is an important member of not only one but two royal houses. I've updated the Personal life section with additional sources. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfy WP:GNG, he have received many coverage and there is about enough information to establish WP:GNG. e.g [49]. SoeThiha5 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced, enough information to establish WP:GNG. --Richiepip (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on coverage passes GNG. - dwc lr (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the growing consensus that the next heir to a defunct throne is still notable, even if all his relatives might not be; he easily passes WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON#8: Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth). Being related to former and present royals does not make someone notable, contrary to the assertions of some editors here; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, see WP:INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The assertion that there is WP:SIGCOV is strange to me; four different sources have been presented to support this assertion yet none of them actually provide any in-depth coverage, only trivial gossipy material. TompaDompa (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well. The longer we wait for the closure of this debate the more relevant sources and articles are in the meantime found about this individual, and some of it are added to the article. I find your assertion, that there isn't WP:SIGCOV a bit odd. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have any particular source in mind? When editors above asserted that sources that demonstrate notability exist, they linked to this one which doesn't provide any in-depth coverage, this one which doesn't provide any in-depth coverage, this one which doesn't provide any in-depth coverage, and this one which doesn't provide any in-depth coverage. It's all trivial, gossipy material. "Look at these photos on his Instagram" is not significant coverage, it's trivial tabloid journalism. I also looked at the sources cited on the article itself, and even ignoring that several of them are the same article hosted on different websites, none of the ones I could access provided any in-depth, significant coverage. Namedrops and trivial coverage don't establish notability, only significant coverage does. I put it to you that if there is significant coverage, it should be fairly easy to give an example of something he is notable for (besides having famous relatives, which is the reason all this trivial coverage exist and which doesn't count when we determine notability for Wikipedia subjects). If it is not possible to say based on the sources what he is notable for (again, besides who he is related to), then those sources hardly provide significant coverage, now do they? TompaDompa (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is information about his life not "in-depth coverage"? The first link alone provides a lot of info on who he is. Also, these are not gossipy materials. They are directly based on the contents he has shared through his social media rather than some baseless made up nonsenses like "Prince William had an affair with the Marchioness of Cholmondeley". Where is the Wikipedia policy that states that this type of coverage is trivial and not significant? StellarHalo (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the information about his life is his genealogy, his date of birth, and the school he went to, that's not in-depth coverage. That the things the sources report are based on things posted social media rather than baseless speculation doesn't make stuff like Judging by his mother's Instagram page, it looks like he received a pretty special 18th birthday present. not be gossipy. TompaDompa (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you start pointing at specific guidelines it is always a good idea to remember to read the text from it's first sentence, and not just from the part of the text, that you would like other users to focus on. The first sentence here starts like this: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics — those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Well, as for Constantine Alexios we can first of all say that he does pass GNG on the points that the sources provided are reliable, secondary and independent of the subject, and he's the focus of several of the sources, which means there's "significant coverage" as defined by GNG. We seem to disagree on the notion "significant". From your concept of "significant" it sounds like it has to be several pages long text about the subject and with little or no importance of pictures or other illustrations. Well I see significant coverage as a source where not just one aspect but in stead various aspects about the subject in question or about how we should percieve the role and place the subject has in this world is listed, mentioned or brought to our attention. This understanding can come from text as well as pictures and other illustrations as well, depending on the nature of the subject and the nature of the kind of notability the subject is known for. To go back to the first sentence again. First "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large", well yes certainly. Constantine Alexios has received attention in far more languages, than I can count, and in far larger numbers, that I can count (by the thousands or more) and secondly "and over a period of time", also affirmative in connection to Constantine Alexios. The first significant coverage was of his baptism in 1999. His first years in school is only mentioned briefly in the sources we so far have come across, but from around his final year at Wellington College (2016-2017) and until this year he has been covered often and not just as a small notice about being a son of his parents, but with actual information about the person in question. And then, what is Constantine Alexios notable for? Well apart from the fact of being a member of two royal houses of Europe he is at least notable for (as far as we can tell from the media coverage on this person) three things 1) Being a "celebrity", that is of course a rather general term, but in contrast to some old German princesses that no one really know about, and even fever care about, then Constantine Alexios is a young celebrity both measured by the media coverage, he receives and by the number of people around the globe, that follows in some way or another his life and his creations (followers by the hundred thousands it seems). 2) He is also noted for his artistic skills and creations in paintings, illustrations, sculpture and photography and that's one of the reasons, that he draw the attention from so many followers, it's not just because he is an unwed bachelor prince. 3) He has been a model for the notable House of Dior who for this specific job deliberately choose notable/famous people from around the world. And as for the "significant coverage, that can tel us some details about who Constantine Alexios is, and what kind of things he do in his life, it could be articles like these (though I still miss out on several major languages wheter there should be significant coverage in those languages or not): Constantino Alexios, el talentoso príncipe de Grecia que saca suspiros en Instagram, CONSTANTINO ALEXIOS CUMPLE 18 AÑOS, FELICIDADES, Греческий принц Константин-Алексиос: почему юноше прочат популярность принца Гарри, Kronprinsesse Marie-Chantal sender sin ældste søn i skole i USA, Η απίστευτη ζωή του εγγονού του τέως βασιλιά Κωνσταντίνου – Σπουδές, εξωτικά ταξίδια και κυνήγι, The incredible life of Prince William's Instagram-famous godson, Prince Constantine-Alexios of Greece, Meet Prince William’s Instagram-famous godson, Prince Constantine-Alexios of Greece & Dorte Quist (23 June 2016): "Familien flytter til New York", Billed Bladet (Denmark - in Danish). Oh yes, it has been mentioned, that some of the sources is basically the same text, and to some extent that is true for some of the sources, but only to a certain extent. If you scrutinize these sources more thoroughly you will find, that there are small differences between these at first glance apparently identical sources, with some sources containing information, that the other sources don't, so in most cases, there have been an editorial overseeing of these sources before being published. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we evidently have different ideas about what "significant" means in this context. You seem to be focusing on breadth of coverage whereas I'm focusing on depth of coverage. If all we can say about a subject is basic biographical information (because that's all the sources report), we're not an encyclopedia but a glorified WP:DIRECTORY. If all we can say about a subject is trivial and/or gossipy stuff (because that's all sources report), we're not an encyclopedia but a glorified tabloid. I don't think those two types of coverage add up to signifiant coverage. I would characterize the coverage he has received as trivial, sensationalist celebrity gossip, not significant coverage. The idea that news articles about his baptism constitute significant coverage is a bit silly to me – that's not exactly in-depth, because there is of course nothing in-depth to say about a child that young. The stuff about being a model for Dior is plainly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. I'll quote WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. and If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. I don't think there is substantial depth of coverage in any of these sources, the independence of the sources that do exist is not exactly flawless (although there are slight variations), and the coverage is indeed trivial, so I don't think the combined coverage from these sources adds up to substantial depth of coverage. TompaDompa (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of what is 'significant' or not, can not be judged by any objective standard - that is all in all a subjective point of view. Well it seems that a broad majority of the users engaged in this AfD debate has another view on WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG than the view you try to advocate for, and as for notability, frankly TompaDompa if I have to choose, I will tend to choose Dior's judgement on who is a celebrity and a notable person in this world way beyond the choise you wish to make in this matter. The matter of him being a model for Dior is of course also mentioned in several other sources (it seem that some of the best sources for this individual is neither in English, Greek or Danish but actually in Spanish - partly probably due to his close family ties to the Spanish royal family), and it is surely also a natural part of the book itself, but I don't see any point in adding the book to the list of sources when it is allready mentioned in the text itself. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The size of the article has now been increased with more than 50% since the opening of the AfD. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
^ https://emergingcricket.com/events/ec-cricket-calendar/ ^ Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstliche Häuser XIX. "Danemark". C.A. Starke Verlag, 2011, p. 10. (German). ISBN 978-3-7980-0849-6.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Norway riots

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

This completely fails WP:NOTNEWS.

it was not a riot. It was a demonstration with violent elements.
the confrontational part did not last for days, or hours, but minutes.
no property damage but a couple of dents in cars. Nothing burned, not even a broken window etc.
the "injured" person was very lightly injured at best.
claims about "non-centralised leadership" constitute pretentious wording.
the event has not led to other, noteworthy events and has had negligible consequences/repercussions.
sources that exaggerate the above points may well exist, but are not WP:RS. The indicent warrants a sentence in the article about Stop Islamisation of Norway, nothing more. Yes, it was reported - as a news story, which Wikipedia is not an outlet of. Geschichte (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The protest were held only for couple of hours for one day, and there is just one injury. This protest didn't gain significant international attention. So I think the article should be deleted, despite I'm trying to contribute to this article. I know this article might be targeted by anti-Islam IP vandals. I think it should have corresponding article on the Norwegian Wikipedia instead. --Stylez995 (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the riots didn't get much wide media attention when compared to the 2020 Sweden riots. I also doubt whether Norwegian authorities wilfully hidden the information from the media. Most of the sources linked Norway riots with the Swedish riots rather than elobarating the development behind the anti-Islam riots in Norway. Abishe (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because the Swedish event actually was a riot, lasting for hours, with fires being started, property being damaged, and even a foreign speaker denied/expelled from the country. On another note, Norwegian authorities could not have hidden anything from the media, because the media were present in abundance. Geschichte (talk) 09:53, 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 11:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia v Myanmar (2022 FIFA World Cup qualification)

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

This is a routine match in the World Cup qualifying rounds. The result was quite surprising, as the weaker team won, but if we had articles for every match in which that happened, we'd have hundreds of thousands of articles. Apart from deletion, there is the possibility that this could be merged or redirected to the main article (in this case 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round). Also nominating three further articles with the same rationale. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per nom. These matches have no lasting memory or notability. Giant Snowman 11:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, matches do not meet WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability; a couple of the results are 'surprising' but nothing groundbreaking Spiderone 11:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Spiderone. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom.--Sakiv (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all not notable. Kante4 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent articles. I find it surprising that, while the article about Poland's only ever victory against Germany claims it to be of high significance, it isn't particularly highlighted in the articles about Poland's national football team either here or on the Polish Wikipedia. Happy to be proven wrong, but the importance of these matches seems rather exaggerated. —Kusma (t·c) 19:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I see nothing particularly significant about these matches that would warrant an article. They're not all-time classics at any level, and no records were set in any of them. I'm not even sure why they were selected to have articles in the first place. – Pee Jay 15:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none of them are significant to pass WP:GNG. I'm mildly opposed to redirects at these don't seem like intuitive things people will be searching for. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all not a notable international match. Dede2008 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable with lasting impact. We don't make articles for every time Liechtenstein or San Marino win, this is no different. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Quite simply, these are all not notable in the slightest. HawkAussie (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 14:11, 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. The arguments for deletion are stronger. Notability requires sources, and there are none of substance here (the article cites one dead website of unclear reliability, http://www.rileyandson.co.uk/html/45407.html.). The "keep" opinions don't rebut this, but appear to argue that such locomotives are inherently notable, which has no foundation in guidelines or policy. Sandstein 10:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 5407

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

Hardly notable steam locomotive, one ref citing a glimpse on a TV programme from 1991, and the other is parts from the owner's website. Both aren't significant enough to prove notability. Nightfury 10:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is pragmatic. At a total guess without checking there's probably about 10 of these in preservation. And there wil be sources in the offline magazine. It is probably be possible to merge with all its mates in with LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 (preserved) if anyone with a positive outlook on the this. But given other results this is probably a keep. Has this been discussed at WikiProject level because we really need consistent guidlelines. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only in very exceptional cases are individual locomotives notable, and this article utterly fails to assert any sort of notability. Entirely fancruft in my opinion. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of 18 preserved locomotives of this class, ten of which have WP articles. Merging into one combined article, or even the main LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 is faintly ridiculous. Preserved UK mainline steam locomotives are notable. – Iain Bell (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes we have 10 WP articles for these preserved steam locomotives, but nearly all of them are also unsourced fancruft, with no sourced material establishing notability. We do presume notability on each train class, but not on the individual locomotives. Jumpytoo Talk 19:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devin R. Pepper

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

does not meet criteria for WP:MILITARY -- no major commands, not yet of General rank DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet SOLDIER, no evidence he meets GNG either. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a complete failure of our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 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. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 14:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Dale Monson

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

Does not meeet criteria for WP:CREATIVE DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This can be Speedily deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation of https://ctstatelibrary.org/monson-edith-dale/. The references support none of the text and are just thrown in there to make it look like it's sourced. It isn't. Vexations (talk) 12:08, 2 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Crescenti

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

no evidence of particular notability DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe in any case, it should be expanded. He is a well-known public pesonality, has been awarded an Outsanding Citizen award (among others), has several published articles in journals:

He also received an Honoris Causae degree. ["Camilla de rescate para situaciones de inundación" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)]. He is a reference in its field, being invited to international events on the area such as IPRED conference in Israel: "Incidents Terror Managing in Experience Sharing" (PDF). Flipwared (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per user Flipwared. Widely known emergency-specialist doctor here in Argentina, and elsewhere, particularly for his role in the aftermath of the 1994 AMIA bombing.----Darius (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sreeja Ravi. Sandstein 15:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of other language films dubbed by Sreeja Ravi

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

unnecessary list, WP is not IMdB. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep: this functions the same as a separate discography page for notable, productive artists. Sreeja Ravi looks to be one of the more important dubbing or voice-over artists, a "job" which in some countries is considered more important (France, India, Japan) than elsewhere. Perhaps it can be merged to the two others lists of films she dubbed, but deletion of this logical spin-off list seems not the best solution. Fram (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that she is the dubbing artist with the most victories (4) at the Kerala State Film Award for Best Dubbing Artist, so she has a considerable career, not just one important movie and otherwise minor bits. Fram (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- with only a handful of entries, this is too short to be much use as a stand-alone article. I suggest it would be best to consolidate the three articles of this kind into two: Malayalam language films and non-malayalam. The latter will be dominated by Tamil, of course, but it's not so long that it couldn't accommodate the merge. Reyk _YO! 10:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't recall having similar list for other artists. Bvatsal61 (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sreeja Ravi: per Reyk // Timothy :: talk 03:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note this discussion is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tamil films dubbed by Sreeja Ravi, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 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 18:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil films dubbed by Sreeja Ravi

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

unnecessary list, WP is not IMdB. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sreeja Ravi, there is space there rather than having a standalone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. scope_creep^Talk 19:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - a standalone list article is not warranted here. 1292simon (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary trivial list. NavjotSR (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify to Draft:Mian Banda. ‑Scottywong | [communicate] || 03:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Banda

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

This page does not meet GNG, which it must as a populated place without legal recognition. If anything it should be merged with Timergara, but there isn't a whole lot to merge. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the nominator think that this village has no legal recognition? A click on the word "books" above shows that it is recognised by censuses. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Census tracts are not usually considered notable Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A village is not a census tract. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Terrible excuse for an article, but does appear to be a recognised village. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete There is certainly a Mian Banda in Pakistan, but I'm not the least convinced that it's anything like the place being talked about in this article. One set of references implies that it is on a substantial river; a news report recounts an address given at a seminary there with a name drop implying that everyone in Pakistan knows where it is. Meanwhile I get a clickbait mapper which locates it at a cluster of a 3-4 houses wedged at the end of a valley, clearly not consonant with the textual accounts. If someone could actually read the 1999 census it would help a good deal, but at the moment, given the sourcing and inconsistencies, I just cannot believe the text that we have now, and would suggest that starting over would be better than trying to work with what's there now. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a very poor latinization of a Pakistani language word. I can't find anything around Timegara that resembles this name so I'm ~~leaning towards delete~~ without prejudice for recreation if this turns out to be a legitimate population center. Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Changed to neutral based on Timothy's research below. If we could determine which population center this is for certain, then I'd say keep.Oakshade (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Draftify (changed vote, see below): I found a census that records two places with this name in LOWER DIR DISTRICT here)) ). I'm not sure which one it is, I think its the one with 2564 population, (the other has 133 people) I think this accounts for Mangoe discovery above. But whichever it is, it is a populated legally recognized place and appears to meet GEOLAND // Timothy :: talk 01:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to Draftify. Mackensen is right, if we're not sure what place it's referring to, then its not ready for mainspace. BD2412 I think has the right compromise, if it can't be developed, it will be deleted, but it will have a chance to develop if possible. // Timothy :: talk 02:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think my ping to Mangoe above failed because it was in an edit. Forgive if this is a double ping. // Timothy :: talk // Timothy :: talk 01:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this version of the article because it utterly fails Wikipedia:Verifiability in its current form. The topic is notable, but per TimothyBlue (talk · contribs) it's not clear what place our article is about. Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft, pending development of sources specifically indicating which entity by the name "Mian Banda" this is, and what its characteristics are. BD2412 T 01:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will recreate a disambiguation page at Piritu Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prosponsive

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

COI template removed and the PROD was contested[50] but the article still fails to meet the notability guidelines. KartikeyaS (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotion for a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NEOLOGISM as an adjective and WP:CORPDEPTH as a brand name. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NEOLOGOISM. Article doesn't demonstrate broad use, and overly emphasises that its trademarked. Imaginestigers (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEOLOGISM, history also reveals evidence of possible socking (and COI) Changed to revert to previous revision, page was previously a disambig page and should be reverted to that. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to disambiguation page per Berrely. Paisarepa (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless I'm misreading the edit history, there appears to have been some unorthodox editing going on here: this edit to the page Piritu changed it from a disambiguation page to one with the content currently at Prosponsive, then the following edit moved the page from Piritu to Prosponsive; they then turned Piritu into a redirect. The SPA who did all this hasn't been active since and it's not easy to tell whether this was in good faith, but it all seems quite confusing.

I propose that the page be deleted (I've already voted further up the page) and that we leave Piritu as a redirect, since most of the wikilinks on the disambiguation page were red. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Given the Sockpuppet investigation into the page's main editors, one of whom shares a name with C.L. Services Inc, which describes itself as "a Prosponsive© logistics company", I feel it would be prudent to salt the page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm new to Wikipedia. I am just trying to keep my company page live and appease my boss. Please let this page stay live, I have removed Neologism references and any marketing/sales related information. Please believe me, I am just trying to do my job and keep this page live. I have never been an editor on Wikipedia before so that's why everything looks strange to you all, I just have no idea what I am doing. Just trying to get by and keep my boss happy. Please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timgriffin27 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timgriffin27 if you have a professional or personal connection with the subject of this Wikipedia article, you are not permitted to edit it and must declare your connection. Please see the relevant Wikipedia policy for further details. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons put forth by Dom Kaos. Also agree that this should be salted, and a disambiguation page created/restored for 'Piritu' (which, AFAICT, has nothing to do with 'Prosponsive'). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trove (company)

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

This promotional article doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP KartikeyaS (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I removed most of the article, since it has been expanded with marketing babble. I think the info that is there now could form the basis for an encyclopedic article about the company, and that we should keep the article.Freediving-beava (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty thin RS for this company, possibly they may qualify for one in the future. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not altogether sure this organisation has notability; the references - thin as Deathlibrarian says, all talk about rebranding and services but this really does not seem like any real notability for this company. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 20:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:26, 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 keep. A very clear consensus to keep now. Tone 18:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Goldberg (surgeon)

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

I am unable to find sources to demonstrate that WP:BIO is met and with an h index of 10, it seems unlikely that WP:PROF is met either. SmartSE (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete such a low coverage for his work does not lead to meeting the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was awarded an OBE in 2011 for services for medicine so I would assume passes criteria 2 of notability of academics: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." He also founded the Medical Futures Innovation Awards, "Europe’s leading showcase of early-stage innovation in healthcare", eg see [51]https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/2011/smd/queen-mary-research-team-wins-medical-futures-award-2011.html Piecesofuk (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk: Is receiving an OBE an automatic pass? An OBE is not at all similar to the types of awards listed in Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes. Founding an award scheme has no impact on notability. SmartSE (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartse: Actually, the OBE would be covered by WP:ANYBIO #1. However, we have generally held that an OBE is not enough to satisfy that criterion (although the next higher level, the CBE, would be). It is a major contributing factor to notability, but does not confer notability on its own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with OP MaskedSinger (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The h-index cited @Johnpacklambert: seems to only have a fraction of his publications. This GoogleScholar page suggests an h index of 19 and citations of more than 2000 with rapid trajectory. He is a respected author [52] [53] and sits on editorial committees [54] [55] and his research including a publication in Nature Scientific Reports e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-57912-z meets the Wiki Notability for academics. The most recent Nature publication was only published in 2020 and takes time to receive citations [56] 08:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC) — SnowmedGT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete undisclosed paid-for spam with no evidence of notability either under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Most of the current sources are passing mentions, name checks and thus don't confer notability. GSS ^💬 07:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

16:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets Notability under WP:PROF AND WP:BIO. He is a Professor at UCL [57][58]. He has published more than 70 publications with over 2400 citations [59]. He sits on national committees such as the UK National Joint Registry [60] and is Chief Investigator on a NIHR study receiving public funding of £1.5 million [61]. He has published several textbooks [62]. He was awarded an OBE for services to Medicine [63]. These are not passing mentions nor name checks as stated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Speccledct (talk • contribs) 13:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC) — Speccledct (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Speccledct: You have not explained why you think PROF or BIO are met. Being a professor and publishing articles and books is not sufficient. SmartSE (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SmartSE: The first criteria for WP:PROF is that the person’s research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. I cannot find many orthopaedic surgeons anywhere in the world that were awarded £1,505,666.72 to be a chief investigator in a national research study [64]. He appears to have made a significant impact on researching ankle arthritis [65][66]. He was invited as a guest speaker at the Canadian American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society [67], the British Orthopaedic Association [68] and his research is nominated for the Roger Mann Award at the American Orthopaedic Society [69] which all seem to be reliable sources. With regards WP:BIO the first criteria is having received a well recognised and significant honour - He received an OBE [70]. I cannot see anywhere is WP:BIO it stating that an MBE or OBE is not a well recognised nor a significant honour. Adele received an MBE [71] and Victoria Beckham an OBE [72]. Incidentally on the WP:BIO page under the heading for Academics it states that “Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.”. His papers have been cited thousands of times by other researchers [73] and so are influential. SpeccledCT (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN spamcruft; also wholly endorse GSS's analysis. ——Serial 17:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this. Originally, my closure was keep since I have a feeling that WP:PROF has chances of getting through, but I'd prefer seeing some more input. Maybe the article should be WP:TNT
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 08:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 08:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Several comments here are not objective and some unnecessarily offensive. He meets Notability under WP:PROF with very clear examples given that meet majority of criteria and agree with @Piecesofuk: seems to meet WP:BIO. SnowmedGT (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. You can't !vote twice. Favonian (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has the bare minimum citations to fulfill WP:NACADEMIC for his field [74]. Sum this up with Most Excellent Order of the British Empire award and I believe it is decent keep. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, thanks XOR'easter for listing this under the academics deletion discussion today. Kindly requesting more relists so that people that are active in this sorting list have time to check this out and cast their opinions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A distinguished author, professor, researcher, surgeon and scholar, right? When we routinely keep subjects such as this, for people who just kick a ball, the notability guidelines are clearly inconsistent and lack sense and so we should ignore them and follow policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrew above makes an excellent point – we should delete more articles about people who merely kick a ball! Order of the British Empire does NOT bestow notability and such argument above should be disregarded: well over 200 UK people received it in 2011 alone, few of which are WP notable. Goldberg has an excellent resume but sources are basically all non-independent or passing mentions, failing GNG. Apparent undisclosed paid spam. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for invite to comment. Kicks more than a ball. Meets WP:PROF. If criteria for WP:PROF needs changing then change but you cannot change interpretation. Paper in Nature [75] is impressive and lots of the references are independant eg receiving a public grant from the NHS [76] . MAF1966 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Göteborgs Högre Samskola

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this school does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, mostly having to do with an alumnus, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS. The two // Timothy :: talk 03:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some sources to the article, but have only scratched the surface of what is available. I'm not going to give up my whole evening to this just because someone spent a couple of minutes creating a deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seem relevant and sourced. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources looks good. Subject relevant. BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 100-year old school with over 1,000 students in a major Swedish city. Meets WP:NSCHOOL and is useful encyclopedic content. Batmanthe8th (talk) 04:22, 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 merge to Underwater videography. Sandstein 07:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First video-recording from a submarine

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

This article was created by a user who appears to be the author of three of the sources cited. It also cites an article in the Houston Chronicle from 1969 which I cannot find/access, but even with that, I do not think that this was a sufficiently important event to merit having an article here. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is interesting stuff, and if there's an article where parts of it could be merged to that would be better; but I couldn't say where that would be...? Doesn't work as a standalone though. Note that the author of the article is not only the author of all the sourcing except for the lone newspaper article, but also the guy who built the camera (see paragraph 5). This is a pretty stringent one-man operation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be open to changing your vote to merge? This would fit very nicely in a new section under Tenneco since the first civilian recording was performed on one of their storage units.DavidDelaune (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if this should stay or go, but seeing as most submarine tech is military, it is a drastic omission that this is only the first civilian recording, not the first recording period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevey-On-Sea (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is absolutely encyclopedic material! This should be merged into the Tenneco page since the first video recording was associated with the Molly Brown.DavidDelaune (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against merging this somewhere, but I don't see how it would work at Tenneco. 95% company fiscal history, then one anecdote about a submarine video tangentially related to one of their properties...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's underwater videography. That might be a better target. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a great idea. Both of these articles need some help and merging them together would make a much better article.DavidDelaune (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likely conflict of interest, but DavidDelaune has listed a good idea. Merge. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Underwater videography as suggested above as an alternative to deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 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) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Pistons Motorcycle Club

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

Non-notable club that fails WP:ORG. Article is WP:COATRACK of miscellaneous crimes and relies on fallacy of inherited notability from Outlaws Motorcycle Club. See WP:INHERITORG. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Outlaws Motorcycle Club where other such clubs are mentioned. ww2censor (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is an international club with a large membership. The article could certainly be expanded and improved. Shaolin Punk (talk) 12:20, 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 08:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Distinct enough from Outlaws Motorcycle Club with enough content to merit its own article. Batmanthe8th (talk) 04:27, 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 09:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy's Heart

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

Lack of independent reliable resources. does not pass WP:NFILM Priyanjali singh (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, thanks for reviewing my article. I get your reasoning that it doesn't comply with WP:NFILM. However, it's pretty much impossible to include any more independent resources, as this is a relatively unknown film. I believe it does deserve its own entry because it was screened at the Shorts Seasons Summer festival as part of the official selection (see cite 1) and does include two actresses who are known for more mainstream work (Perpetua Kish and Olivia Harkin). You were so quick in your Afd marking that I hadn't gotten around to writing an article on Kish yet, but that will follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjokhazard (talk • contribs) 07:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NFILM. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The consensus seems to be it should be deleted, and I agree. I'm unable to make it pass WP:NFILM due to the lack of available publicly citable sources. In addition, WP:NFILM lays out what is considered "noteable" and Lucy's Heart as a film doesn't match those criteria. It is a shame. Perhaps a subcategory for niche films should be considered for which the criteria are somewhat less strict than laid out in WP:NFILM. Sjokhazard (talk) 14:28, 2 september 2020 (UTC)

I agree on this - it would be good to try to find some happy medium for short films, as they typically don't gain the coverage that full length films. It'll take a while to come to a consensus so this may take multiple discussions, but I highly recommend launching a discussion at WP:NFILM's talk page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack Done, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(films)#Niche_films Let's see what comes out of it! Sjokhazard (talk) 05:29, 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 11:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iván Enrique Rodríguez

AfDs for this article:

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

An article with the same title was deleted in 2013, on the grounds of lack of notability and probable WP:COI. The same issues relate to the present article. It was originally presented as a draft and turned down, despite which the editor User:MahlerLover uploaded it on 30 September as an article to mainspace with the comment "The Article is ready. Per recommendation of a couple of editors and edits themselves from other community members, I believe the article is ready for WP mainspace." It continues to fail on the grounds of absence of reliable independent sources, misleading references, WP:NOTABILITY and apparent WP:COI. Detailed examples and discussions of these can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Looking For Help!, including examples of inaccurate sources, and non-independent sources. User:MahlerLover has attempted to deflect these by comments about racism in WP standards, but has not attempted seriously to address the deficiencies in the article. User:MahlerLover has not contributed to any other WP articles.Smerus (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the article is illustrated throughout by photos uploaded to WikiCommons by "IvanEComposer", claiming that they are "IvanEComposer"'s own work, and that "IvanEComposer" owns the copyrights to these photos. These claims seem highly unlikely to be true.--Smerus (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As someone who has been hanging around Bands/Musicians AfD discussions for a long time, I have noticed a recent uptick in claims of racism or other cultural prejudice when voters argue that someone is non-notable due to lack of coverage. Here are some recent examples: 1, 2. One possible response is to point out that (if true) this problem happens before Wikipedia and Wikipedia is not equipped to solve it. And personally, I also find it very rude to blame hideous social problems for your favorite musician's lack of fame and fortune. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP: I have followed this a bit and concur with Smerus's assessment. Could probably agree with a return to draft space (without leaving links from mainspace), if the dedicated editor (User:MahlerLover) would agree with keeping to what more experienced users say to them, would keep to the applicable guidance, and defer from TL;DR rhetoric on racism and whatnot. But that might be just some WP:ROPE, assessing behaviour up to this point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm just not seeing where the notability is – and that has absolutely nothing to do with race as Mahlerlover has tried to imply. The hard truth is: Wikipedia is a reflection of society, not the other way around. If the media and coverage is truly "biased" in their output and coverage against the composer in question then there's nothing we can do about that as a tertiary source and neutral encyclopedia. Either way, having an article rejected from AFC twice and then moving it to the mainspace despite that does not help the case. Aza24 (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of reliable sources. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There was another related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan E. Rodriguez. I notice that the creator, MahlerLover, doesn't seem to have been notified. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I posted a link to this AfD proposal in the discussion launched by User:Mahlerlover on the WProect composers page. Interestingly, the editor of the deleted article to which Michael Bednarek refers was "IvanEComposer" - fancy that for a coincidence!--Smerus (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources and unclear notability. I do agree wtih Francis Schonken about possibly moving it back to draftspace if I was made to believe it would receive proper attention there. The best argument for that is probably that the subject is quite young, and better sources notability/verifiability could be available in the future. But is it worth it to hold the article in draftspace until then? I don't know. Noahfgodard (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only question here is whether WP:BIO is met when read alongside WP:NMUSIC. As I see it, there is nothing in the article as it stands to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of those cited are neither "substantial" and few if any are independent or secondary sources. Unless some evidence to the contrary can be shown, there is really no dispute. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is good at what he does, but this article is clearly an attempted resume, which he has either written himself or forwarded to a supporter for entry into Wikepdia, and for at least the third time. His achievements are within an esoteric community, hence the shortage of significant and reliable media coverage and the article's dependence on primary industry listings. The article also exaggerates his accomplishments, as the "Awards" are actually grants and contest entries. For example, the "ASCAP Leonard Bernstein Award" is a small scholarship that is given to multiple entrants every year. He deserves to be noticed by his professional peers, but qualifying for Wikipedia is a different process. It may happen in his future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:30, 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 speedy deletion and protection. If any established nonadmin thinks this should redirect to Comali, drop me a note. —Cryptic 09:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Ranganathan

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable actor and director. Major work in short films, only one movie that is not sufficient to justify notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR Priyanjali singh (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a recreation of an essentially similar article to one deleted by the prior deletion discussion. If redirecting to Comali protect the redirect against modification without admin approval. Fiddle Faddle 07:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that while the text may have altered (I don't have admin goggles to check) the referencing is still broadly about the movie not the person. The actor fails WP:NACTOR Fiddle Faddle 07:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My mistake, i couldn't check the recent deletion discussion. Note to Admin, please Speedy Delete. Priyanjali singh (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: The same page was deleted less than a week back via AfD, where an IP user was very interested in keeping the page live via any means. Nothing has changed in regards to the subject not meeting WP:GNG criteria. I further suggest salting the creation of this page. - Roller26 (talk) 22:06, 2 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 University of Warsaw. Tone 18:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University of Warsaw

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

I PRODed it with "he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." The author removed the PRO and asked for more time to expand it. The article has been expanded, yes, but I am afraid like most faculties it is still non-notable, sourced to PRIMARY sources and mentions in passing. PS. Considering the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Management of the University of Warsaw and the COI by at least one author, I do wonder if the University of Warsaw isn't trying some ill-thought promotion on Wikipedia? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Warsaw. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to University of Warsaw per the nomination. For the exact same reasons I gave in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Management of the University of Warsaw. Online search indicates there is no reason to believe the Faculty of Political Science of the UoW is any more notable than the Faculty of Management. Dps04 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Justice League

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

Another unreferenced (outside PRIMARY) comic plot summary. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Already PRODDed twice before, by User:Jfgslo in 2011 and User:TTN in 2019. Three time the charm... can this piece of WP:FANCRUFT finally die? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 2 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} 06:44, 2 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} 06:44, 2 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} 06:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even according to the source this group only appeared in one issue. Not finding any other sources online. Rhino131 (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A team that appeared in exactly one issue, with absolutely no substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. While there are other, similar evil teams that are arguably notable, such as the Legion of Doom, this one is certainly not even close to having notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ultra-obscure supervillain organisation that made a one-off appearance back in 1975 and was never seen again anywhere. On top of the complete lack of coverage, another organisation of the same name is unlikely to ever show up due to the existence of the Injustice League, Legion of Doom, and the Secret Society of Supervillains in modern comic books. I already added the Anti-Justice League to List of DC Comics teams and organizations, seeing as there is absolutely no reason for this article to exist. Dark knight 2149 00:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscure and trivial group.★Trekker (talk) 19:29, 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 keep. Tone 09:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey (email service)

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

A two-months-old service, no indication of notability, refs are to informercials all published around the launch date. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a NYT article, a CNET article, and two Verge articles in the citations, that's more than just infomercials. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you will agree that (sponsored) media buzz generated for a product launch is not normally sufficient for the product to be included in an encyclopaedia. Especially for a two-months-old product. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG per [77] and [78]. These are not "infomercials", nor do I find any indication that they are sponsored -- the even include some criticism. SD0001 (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is still as far from the required significant coverage as possible - the NYT article is an opinion piece while Inc.com has unclear reliability - tech journalists blogging about various software alone don't make it automatically eligible for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. The NYT article isn't an opinion piece. Its written by Brian X. Chen, described as the "lead consumer technology writer for The New York Times", which means that it's an independently-researched article by an expert in the field, making it a textbook example of a source required for WP:SIGCOV. Inc.com is a business magazine - is there a reason to suspect its reliability? You are just airily dismissing perfectly valid sources on whims. – SD0001 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 06:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the coverage is non-trivial. All the sources currently in the article for the disagreement with Apple date from late June, but this matter is still rumbling on. A very perfunctory search turned up for example "'This isn't the 1990s': Apple under pressure from app developers" (Guardian; 30 August); as for the product itself, there's "The three worst things about email, and how to fix them" (Washington Post), with the teaser "You’ve got (too much) mail! A buzzy new service called Hey isn’t for everyone, but helps us see how we lost control of Gmail, Outlook and Yahoo Mail" -- so yes, it's all about Hey (and not about Apple). Hey is an unusually young service to get a Wikipedia article; but the article isn't promotional, and I don't know what's not to like. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seems to be significant news coverage and meets WP:GNG. Basecamp already has it's page and is a well know project management software. At the worst case, this should be a Merge. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:16, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Haglund (real estate)

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

I'm ambivalent about the notability of this person, so I'm nominating it for deletion in order to get the community's consensus on it. Haglund has received significant coverage in reliable sources, almost entirely for his legal problems as a local landlord. All of the reliable sources are local: Seattle Times, The Stranger, The News Tribune (Tacoma), Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle Met, South Seattle Emerald, and so on. There is no coverage of Haglund outside of the Seattle metro area.

The coverage spans 5 years, and is mostly about legal problems (example headline: "Accused "Slumlord" Carl Haglund Promises to Improve Building Where Tenants Are Living with Roaches and Rats"). He recently began a non-profit foundation but it has no coverage at all. Even the bits of positive coverage of him refer to him as "notorious Seattle landlord Carl Haglund, after whom a 2016 law dictating new, more stringent building standards was named."

I expect most cities could produce local coverage of local citizens known/notorious for various business dealings. Although editors have added content to keep it from being solely an attack page, I question whether there should be an article at all. So, keep or delete? Schazjmd (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: Also posted at WikiProject Seattle Schazjmd (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mr. Haglund meets WP:GNG: there are substantial articles written about him specifically (although none about his property management company or his very young foundation, which should probably be removed from the article) from reliable sources, and the facts about him are verifiable. Haglund is known for his management of older buildings in some generally lower-income neighborhoods of Seattle, so the term slumlord is certainly loaded and non-neutral, but it has been used so many times by notable people and journalists writing for reliable sources that it is, indelibly, connected to him. I agree that he is primarily known in the Seattle metropolitan area, as like most real estate investors, he has concentrated his investments close to him. The amount of press coverage (largely negative, but some positive) given to Haglund is significant compared to most landlords — and indeed compared to most real estate businesspeople. Among the few non-Seattle-region news articles I could find mentioning Haglund is this one from Socialist Alternative, the monthly newspaper printed by Socialist Alternative (United States), a political party: “Notorious Slumlord” Withdraws Lawsuit, a Win for Sawant and the Housing Justice Movement. It casts Haglund as emblematic of exploitative landlords in the context of SA's campaign for housing justice. Haglund is also mentioned in this Jacobin article: “The Society We Are Fighting for Has to Be Free From All Oppression” which is primarily about Councilmember Sawant and the "Carl Haglund law," as she describes it. White 720 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing here is pretty much all super local to Haglund. We have consistently held that getting local coverage for local activities is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reason given above Thanks, (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request an AfD clerk to relist this nomination. Schazjmd (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per request from nominator
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 06:03, 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 21:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the coverage mentioned above, there is also non-local coverage from Next City, The Washington Post (for those who aren't aware, the Washington in "Washington Post" refers to Washington, D.C., not the state of Washington), and USA Today. In addition, there are a number of non-reliable sources that are not local, which also hints towards notability. Since t local coverage is significant and there is also non-local coverage, he seems sufficiently notable. Gbear605 (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reluctantly. This is an edge case that should not be considered generally applicable. The coverage and the article are almost entirely negative but that is what the RS we have available are actually saying. I'm not impressed by some of the advocacy links above (e.g., Jacobin, Next City) but WaPo is certainly a national RS and the article is substantially about Haglund. (Aside: The USA Today source is not since it is a reprint from local news station KING.) Combined with the local coverage, this meets GNG requirements. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I looked at the WaPo article and it's only a brief mention of Haglund in relation to naming the law; the WaPo article is all about the way the Seattle city government can use their new law to force repairs. I don't think that it has any significant coverage of Haglund. Schazjmd (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sonic Underground characters

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

Standalone-list has no citations and consists of mainly minor characters of the show which are not important to the plot. This would be better off as a possible merge with Sonic Underground. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 05:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 05:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 05:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Or redirect. Unreferenced. This may merit a section in list of Sonic the Hedgehog characters and could be redirected there, I guess. Or the the Sonic Underground section on characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? Why on earth does this exist? Like nom said, mostly consists of one-offs and minor characters with little to no plot relevance. Redirect to Sonic Underground. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The main characters of the series are already included in the main Sonic Underground series. These character simply have zero notability, and as the article is completely unsourced, nothing should be preserved or merged. Rorshacma (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure plotcruft and Wikia material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with or redirect to Sonic Underground. Batmanthe8th (talk) 04:28, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Painton

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

While she may have served as Time's deputy managing editor in the 2007, that alone cannot constitute a pass of WP:GNG. The absolute majority of the references in the article are dead and there are no others to establish notability or significance. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Publishing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing WP:SIGCOV to establish notability here. There are some passing mentions, but not enough to establish her notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:49, 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 09:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sababbi Mangal

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. fails WP:GNG.Priyanjali singh (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the delete nomination. Also, there is something going on with one of the references that has been tagged to Dainik Bhaskar, seems like it is not Dainik Bhaskar. Ktin (talk) 18:21, 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. Article needs work, though. Tone 09:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Ronald (band)

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

I remember these guys, but after an exhaustive Gsearch, I could find no sources indicating that they ever actually charted. (I didn't notify the article creator because s/he created the article in November 2007 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Found a music review and an Allmusic biography (although it is not exactly a novel) but not much else, just trivial mentions/name checks, articles about the film instead and the usual streaming sites/retail sites/databases/blogs. Maybe there are print sources from back then but I can't track them down as I am not keen on it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: falls short of WP:NMUSICIAN. Can we bundle Bad Ronald (album) in with this nomination? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that the article creator made the article, and then disappeared permanently. Possibly conflict of interest? Even if not, Delete based on grounds nom has already covered. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - There are Village Voice and CMJ reviews, among others. Here's a feature that mentions both Bad Ronald and Little T, ironically. These albums were released in the early 2000s, when the music industry was still relatively strong, and labels would have ensured that there was coverage. I prefer album articles, but, again, many editors prefer band ones. Caro7200 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem like enough if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there's AllMusic (twice), Village Voice, CMJ, Orlando Sentinel (twice), OC Weekly, The Tennessean, St. Cloud Times--that's without going into periodical databases. While not generally used as sources, around 10 college newspapers covered the band. I barely remember them and have never listened to them, but they were on a major label, employed a notable producer, and had a minor hit. I believe that more coverage exists outside of 10-12 Google pages. Caro7200 (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of AllMusic though, much of what is in the article appears to be lifted directly from that website. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep Considering their lack of accomplishment one could fairly argue they are not notable enough to merit encyclopedic importance, yet they do meet criteria per coverage (albeit marginal in content--but in strong sources) and major label affiliation (which, combined with the coverage is a large nod in their favor.) ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the identification in this discussion of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Village Voice, CMJ, AllMusic, Orlando Sentinel and others that shows a pass of WP:GNG, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per identified reliable sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:41, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little-T and One Track Mike

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

I remember these guys, but after an exhaustive Gsearch, I could find no sources indicating that they ever actually charted. Contested prod. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did not found much about them. I mean, not much reliable, in fact zip, nada, zero. Just the usual databases/streaming service entries/casual mentions/lyrics sites/youtube videos/name checks/sites where the words are separated. Their sole album got a staff written review on Allmusic, but the biography page of the duo itself is blank. Maybe there are print sources from back then but I can't track them down as I am not keen on it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More coverage exists for their sole album; that article is sufficiently sourced. There is coverage in many college newspapers--those sources aren't generally used, but it does indicate that there was interest and coverage enough at one point. There is also a feature here, and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin calls the album "one of the year's more pleasant surprises." The Source, as always, never shows up... I think it's more than acceptable to have an album article without a corresponding band article, but many editors don't like it. Charting is only one aspect. Caro7200 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 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 09:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shashi Kumar (agriculturist)

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

Insignificant actor/farmer. Winning Bigg Boss is not notable. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable actor. fails WP:GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage for the sake of meeting the requirements of WP:GNG. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:30, 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 20:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shine Shetty

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

No sign of notability. All film roles are minor. Winning Bigg Boss doesn't mean you have a career. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definite failure of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Spiderone 11:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think winning a popular game show gives the subject notability, as an actor this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. EverybodyEdits (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet GNG or NACTOR // Timothy :: talk 22:05, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mageddon

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All sources are PRIMARY, article is pure PLOT/list of appearances. FANCRUFT. Usual dePROD by the same editor without any explanation despite one being explicitly requested in my PROD note. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 2 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} 03:41, 2 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} 03:41, 2 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} 03:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor character who only appeared in a few issues. Sources do not pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The antagonist of only a single storyline, who does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a few mentions of him, but these do not go beyond some brief plot summaries. The fact that one of these brief plot summaries is in a top ten list of the most "forgettable" villains of the 90's kind of shows the non-notability of the character. Rorshacma (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too minor of a character to warrant a standalone article but I can see it being integrated into the Old Gods article (which is yet to be created). Nearlyevil665 (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 05:47, 2 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. Closing as keep, though merge is a viable option as well. Tone 09:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parademon

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All sources are PRIMARY or are TRIVIAL mentions in passing, article is pure PLOT/list of appearances. FANCRUFT. Usual dePROD by the same editor without any explanation despite one being explicitly requested in my PROD note. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 2 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} 03:40, 2 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} 03:40, 2 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} 03:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Darkseid. I don't see how Parademons are independently notable, considering how they are just an army of nameless creatures. Another possible merge target is Apokolips if that article is kept. I'm open to suggestions by others. Rhino131 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pass WP:NCOMIC --"Featured prominently in an animated/live-action series or movie of a comic book property (e.g. not a cameo)". These fictional creatures had appeared in Justice League film. PATH SLOPU 12:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: On one hand, it passes WP:NCOMIC and WP:NFICTION (from a technical perspective). On the other hand, they are just standard mindless henchmen in Jack Kirby's Fourth World (and are adapted and covered as such), so a merge would be justified. Dark knight 2149 18:03, 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 List of Hawkman enemies. Sandstein 11:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Byth

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All sources are PRIMARY, article is pure PLOT/list of appearances. FANCRUFT. Usual dePROD by the same editor without any explanation despite one being explicitly requested in my PROD note. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 2 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} 03:40, 2 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} 03:40, 2 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} 03:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hawkman enemies. The article says archenemy of Hawkman but the actual appearances of the character don't seem to justify that statement. Not finding significant sources for this character for an article; redirecting to the enemies list seems the best option. Rhino131 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - The article lacks sources needed to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 14:29, 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 09:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wingmen of Thanagar

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. This totally unreferenced piece of WP:FANCRUFT was once again dePRODed with no good rationale by the usual culprit... sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 2 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} 03:37, 2 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} 03:37, 2 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} 03:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very minor topic with sources that do not pass GNG. This is a topic better suited for a fansite. Rhino131 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An entirely in-universe plot summary with zero sources. I searched for sources under the title of the article, the variant "Thanagarian Wingmen" as well as the alternate "Hawk-Police" name given in the article, and found very little with any of them. What little there is, is entirely just plot summary. There was one promising looking source, a book titled "The Hawkman Companion", but the coverage of this group in that book is also nothing but pure plot summaries. Rorshacma (talk) 05:21, 2 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 List of Thomas & Friends narrow-gauge engines. Tone 09:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skarloey

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Deprodded by an editor who never provides a useful deprod rationale despite being asked. Ping Hog Farm who endorsed the PROD as well as User:JCC the Alternate Historian]] and User:Trantium7 who left recent comments on the article's talk regarding potential for keeping/merge. Right now, the best I can think of is to redirect this to List of Thomas & Friends narrow-gauge engines, through note that we have emerging consensus to merge that list to List of characters in The Railway Series (please comment at Talk:List_of_characters_in_The_Railway_Series#Merge_from_List_of_Thomas_&_Friends_narrow-gauge_engines if you haven't yet). Cheers, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 2 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} 03:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is fancruft with no reliable source and there are no published, independent sources that I can find that show this subject is notable Trantium7 (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Thomas & Friends narrow-gauge engines: Little substance nor references for a page by itself. -- Whiteguru (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had no idea there was such a willingness to create fancruft on virtually everything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for what it is worth this article dates to 2004, it seems we did not begin to develop any real notability guidelines for characters in fiction until 2006.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lottatore Brindisino

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. The source cited for the majority of the information in the article is clearly short of WP:RS. The Lottatore Brindisino#Ban section is clearly copied from Gull Terrier#Ban and of the three sources used, only one makes a single mention of the breed [79]. The only other source I could find on these dogs was this which mentions the breed name once in a table. Neither of these sources provide “significant coverage”. Cavalryman (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main Moloserdogs.com article has no author nor references, so it is not a WP:REPUTABLE source. Nothing in G-Books. The basis for this dog's mention is a 2009 newsletter which states "NYCHA has designated a variety of mixed and full breed dogs..." and then lists them - it is unclear from this list if this dog is considered a full breed or a mixed breed. The later "Bark" article simply repeats what was in the earlier newsletter. It fails notability and there is nothing we can develop an article around. Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDIC. William Harris (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nominator. No significant coverage in reliable sources is available. William Avery (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and probably salt too. As Cavalryman says, molosserdogs.com is not a WP:RS or anything like one, and should be deprecated and removed wherever it is used in this project. There's nothing but the usual rubbish on GBooks, nothing on ScienceDirect or in a wide-ranging database search; it isn't even listed on agraria.org, which lists a good number of unrecognised or dubious Italian dog breeds. Two list mentions on Scholar, one of which (already mentioned by Cavalryman) cites our List of dog fighting breeds as its only source for this breed; the second cites this page, which clearly attributes Wikipedia. This illustrates well why this project may aspire to be a repository of the world's knowledge, but must not be allowed to become a repository of the world's blog-sourced nonsense. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:13, 2 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) 03:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Education.au

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

NCORP fail. This was mentioned at the Teahouse by an editor quesitoning the lack of references. Looking at the article, I cannot see enough sourcing to establish notability. The company is now defunct and does not seem to have left much of a notability trail either, based on a search for sources. Tagged for primary sources since 2008. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. lack of reliable references. Priyanjali singh (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable organisation. Searches under both the article name and "Education Services Australia" (which it became in 2010) fail to return anything non-routine. Neiltonks (talk) 13:34, 2 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 20:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wadesdah

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

Prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with the usual unhelpful rationale. At best this can be redirected to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. Nothing to merge given the compelte lack of references. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 2 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} 02:52, 2 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} 02:52, 2 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} 02:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and the lack of sources means nothing is worth merging. TTN (talk) 17:37, 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. The notability of this organization (per WP:GNG) was not adequately demonstrated. Consensus is to delete. ‑Scottywong | [yak] || 03:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep: Smile Foundation is one of the most prominent non-profit organizations in Asia[80] as well as one of the biggest NGOs in India which reaches 15,00,000 children and families annually and runs 400 live welfare projects on education, healthcare, livelihood, and women empowerment, in over 2000 remote and rundown areas across 25 states of India. The foundation has thus far provided education to more than 2,00,000 children and has assisted hundreds of families affected by floods in different parts of the country. The purpose is not to show their good works but to show the significance of the subject. The foundation has been covered by various mainstream media nationally as well as internationally, including The Guardian, Businessworld, Mint (newspaper)[81][82][83][84] and there are more references available online.John shibo (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: John shibo (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some links within a year's time [85] [86] [87]. List of org to donate to or org's doing notable work [88] [89]. The NGO's data and studies are often regularly quoted by all media houses with proper references in their articles. Also a number of top Indian corporate houses often tie up with Smile for some charity drive. (Various articles about those too). -- Roller26 (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

331dot, this research paper [90] studied organisational capacity component of the MFS II country evaluations with focus being Smile Foundation, India. This article [91] by a magazine published by Stanford University Center talks about NGO Leadership Development with giving significant coverage to Smile Foundation. Also the Foundation's own website [92] lists 890 print media coverage from 2003 to 15 April 2020. While I will agree most of them will not be significant, or published by reliable, secondary or independent sources, if in source assessment table all of them fail the notability test, I am all for deleting the article. -- Roller26 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purdue Outing Club

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, just a few mentions in passing here and there. PROD removed with no valid rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most large colleges in the US have one of these, and there is nothing to indicate that Purdue's is anything special. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find RS beyond a student who was killed climbing. No rs beyond primary. It could be merged or redirected to Purdue University student body Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The creator left me this notification about contacting the entity in question for further input and a time extension on this discussion: [93]. I asked them to repost it here but in case they don't, here is my diff note. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am no longer in charge of this page, it’s been passed on to others . I have contacted them to get involved if they wish to keep this page. There are several broken links to the sources which need to be corrected. I do not agree with the premise that since most college campuses have one of these that this page needs to be deleted (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_college_and_university_outing_clubs) if this were the case then all the college outdoor pages should be removed or merged to other articles/pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavier3181 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC) (I moved this from the top of this AfD because it was confusing to have it there. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC) )[reply]
Delete As per nom. fails WP:GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no justification for indepdent coverage of most of the clubs and organizations that exist over the years and in many different ways at a large university. If anything here is worth keeping it should be merged into the article on Purdue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. There are no sources cited other than the club's own website and one article from the student newspaper at their university. In accordance with Xavier3181's comment, I would generally support the idea of deleting or merging articles about outdoor clubs at other colleges, too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There was a source that provided all the information in this article that was broken due to the organization changing their webpage contents. They are working to re-cite and re-write all the content for correct sourcing. Xavier3181 (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The status of the club's own website should not really make a difference. I'm mostly concerned about whether the article cites independent sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Wikipedia is not a College Club Wiki. Graywalls (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Agree Purdue has nothing special here for Wikipedia.TruthLover123 (talk) 20:44, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MaryRose Occhino

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

WP:FRINGEBLP of a non-notable so-called psychic. I found one decently in-depth article in Newsday from 2009 about her opening a shop called "Mary O's Celestial Whispers" and [94] (arguably routine coverage), but nothing else substantive. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be built on 3rd party significant coverage, especially for people with fringe ideas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no significant coverage in independent sources - fails GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her books have been reviewed by at least one reliable sources, i.e. Publishers Weekly. pburka (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about her aside from the source indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have (or had) staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers — that's a primary source, not a notability-clinching reliable source, but it's the only "reference" being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 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. Tone 09:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Cowie

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

Non-notable conspiracy theorist-slash-"historian". There are some hits in the deprecated Sun, but nothing I can find in RS. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very clear violation of our rules on coverage of fringe theorists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I looked for a page related to the pseudo-history theories over Rosslyn Chapel / Clan Sinclair / Templars with a view to suggesting a redirect, but could not find one. I thought that the views (bad history) has sufficient prominence to merit an article debunking them, but could not find one. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 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. Tone 09:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Hanna Mack

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

NOT NEWS. -- no general significance WP is not a list of murder victims. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep 2007-2009 there seems to be SIGCOV of the event and conviction of the perp, including the New York Times here. LA Times here WP:N Lightburst (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as what is mentioned above. Inexpiable (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some additional sourcing, this happened near my county but was national news, have included additional sources, major newspapers and AP, in an edit for benefit of the discussion.Bwmarsh (talk) 12:55, 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 draftify. There seems to be a general consensus that he is likely notable, but that this should go through AFC first as a case of paid editing. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with this article? I see discussion of merging two articles on Evangelos Frudakis and I see discussion of cleaning up an article on Frudakis because Cher Skoubo wrote it after receiving a "small payment" but I don't see any discussion on not having ANY article on Evangelos Frudakis.

Why was one article not retained after cleanup? He is certainly a notable figure in the Philadelphia art world.

I can't make these comments on the "the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page" because there is no longer ANY article that exists with a talk page. Pascalulu88 (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EvAngelos Frudakis

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

no evidence of meeting criteria for visual artists--no evidence of work in major museum, or critical studies DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are two articles on this person: EvAngelos Frudakis and EvAngelos William Frudakis. Netherzone (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the content is identical:
:EvAngelos William Frudakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Vexations (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Union List of Artist Names has an entry for the subject: http://www.getty.edu/vow/ULANFullDisplay?find=&role=&nation=&subjectid=500065489 and gives his name as Frudakis, Evangelos William. Vexations (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are two articles on this person: EvAngelos Frudakis and EvAngelos William Frudakis. I am not certain how to comment here. I created the pages. I only would like to keep EvAngelos William Frudakis. People may search for the sculptor under both names but listing should be his full name as this is how he signs his sculpture. I do not know how to delete EvAngelos Frudakis. (talk)
Comment I nominated EvAngelos William Frudakis for speedy deletion, as there is no outcome where we will keep two identical articles.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, wouldn't it make more sense to redirect it (in case it is kept, which I think is a distinct possibility)? That's not the WP:COMMONNAME and it's creator pretty much asked for it to be deleted. I think they somehow tried to create a redirect from EvAngelos Frudakis to EvAngelos William Frudakis but didn't know how to do that. I'm very unhappy about the lack of disclosure, but working with the creator now, so perhaps we can do something productive. Frudakis seems to have received some peer recognition, including some notable awards. Vexations (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: It's a bit of a mess! Anything you think would get rid of one of the copies is fine with me. If EvAngelos Frudakis is speedied, then this AFD will be deleted as well. It's also becoming increasingly clear that this is UPE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I have the sense that he may be notable, based on the many public monuments created. (eg Kennedy bust in front of Nashua town hall). However this also appears to be paid editing and should be draftified and then run through AFC. The creator did the article subject's web site, and has mentioned other connections. See the COI query here...ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did not create the article subject's website. As far as I know, the subject does not have a website.Cher Skoubo (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: article creator has disclosed that this is paid editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Agree that he is probably notable, given that he won a Prix de Rome, and the permanent public art works. The article creator Cher Skoubo needs to declare her paid COI on both versions of the article; pinging her since this discussion will be helpful to her as a new editor. Netherzone (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have used the template making the disclosure on both talk pages and they have been removed. Can you explain why?

Cher Skoubo the article does not have a talk page. I'll create one for you, then you will be able to place the disclosure template on the talk page. And please don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes when you post on talk pages and this page also. Netherzone (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you. I put the disclosures previously on the talk pages. They were visible and at the top of the talk page. When I returned to the talk pages they were removed prior to the deletion of the page. Isn't this the location that they should be at? I also put them on my user talk page. Please advise as I read the Wikipedia instructions and understood that this was the requested location. If not, please let me know where. Thanks again. Cher Skoubo (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the article should have gone through AfC in the first place anyway, as the creation of an editor with a conflict of interest. The subject is likely (albeit marginally) notable. Vexations (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have put the disclosure back up on the Talk page, viewable at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EvAngelos_Frudakis Please confirm if OK and advise if not. The subject is not a client as he is dead. The family paid me a small amount but most of my time is volunteered at no charge. I hope that the disclosure does not disappear again.Cher Skoubo (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have used sources such as the Smithsonian Institution, the National Sculpture Society, the American Academy in Rome, the National Register of Historical Places. Are these not acceptable to Wikipedia? I have no interest in promotion. The artist is dead. I am documenting and trying to follow all guidelines. Cher Skoubo (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally just disclosed recently on my talk page that you were getting paid to write the article. That is the definition of paid promotion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, as explained above, as soon as I was aware that this was needed I read the guidelines and posted the template on the talk pages and on my talk page. They were removed off of the site talk pages prior to the deletion of the subjects's page. I did not do that and I wondered who would have done that and why. Cher Skoubo (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cher Skoubo As I mention above, you never created a talk page for this article, so you could not have posted a disclosure. I'm sure it was an oversight on your part, so I went ahead and created a talk page for you on Sept 3. Nothing was removed by anyone, you just forgot to make a talk page when you created the article. Look at the talk page history to see for yourself. Netherzone (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone I put the disclosure on my talk page with links to the sites. Then I clicked on the site link and tried to paste it at the top of the site page. It gave me a message that it had to go on the Site Talk page. I clicked on the Talk tab and pasted it at the top for each site. If it was not the Talk page for that page I am not certain where it was. I will take screen grabs in the future as I am truly trying to comply with all of the regulations and standards of Wikipedia.Cher Skoubo (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Evangelos Frudakis was awarded the Medal of Honor for Lifetime Achievement from the National Sculpture Society. This is their highest honor in the field of sculpture. Would you like me to have them email you with their records? He was also awarded their Meiselman Prize in 1981, the Herbert Adams Award in 1976 and their Gold Medal in 1972. EvAngelos Frudakis was awarded other awards and has created monumental sculptures in National Historic Parks and National Buildings. He taught at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Art. His students are on Wikipedia as well as sculptors that he studied with. He studied with Paul Jennewein, Robert Laurent, Paul Manship, Edward McCartan and Brenda Putnam. He had an assistant position with with sculptor Jo Davidson. The sculptures of EvAngelos Frudakis are in permanent collections or installed in historic locations. For example, The Signer is permanently installed in Independence National Historic Park. This is a permanent installation in a national historic location. I think there was confusion because of the name change and I published the page when I was trying to include his middle name. I apologize for this mistake as I realize that you all are extremely busy. I can recreate the page using any process that you would like and you can tell me the list of editors you would like to review it. Please explain why you think he has not made a significant contribution to sculpture and public art. I am glad to ask the National Sculpture Society to contact you directly if you need to speak to someone to verify information and why they awarded him their highest award. Please let me know what you need to verify the accuracy of information and the quality of his contributions. I only wish to document accurate information following all rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Thanks. Cher Skoubo (talk) 00:05, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Bacon (political aide)

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

So he got a spate of news coverage for being a 23 year old, but it began on February 25, and had essentially dried up by the 26. Since then, there's been silence. This means that WP:NOTNEWS applies, as he's really a minor white house official in a position that, afaik, doesn't convey notability by itself. Seems to also be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as he may become notable in the future. Since the news cycle forgot about him, Bacon has done nothing worthy of note, and there is no indication that he currently is notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a young aide.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:NOTRESUME. There is nothing notable about this person. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON Lightburst (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable low level political functionary. He may rise to notability later, but he has not yet done so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cinzia Moniaci

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

not my field, but the notability seems to rest on press releases DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Notability claims seem to rely on associations with notable people, which doesn't quite meet our bar. And the musetv source is flagged as a malware site by my malware detection software. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is probably the latest Dauman Music promotion. Expect a Nashville IP shortly. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, happened while my tab was open. Let's just say there's a pattern related to Dauman Music artists when it comes time to promote new singles. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- You can't put anything past wikipedia moderators--too smart. You're correct about the relationship of this page to Dauman music--however, Cinzia is accomplished in her field as a fashion designer. I've attached a link to a Vogue Italy article showing some of her achievements. Have mercy, and I promise not to post about another musician/singer again. Nashville — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxman732 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She has accomplished little as a singer, with no reliable media coverage of her solo works. The article says her recent song reached the "UK TOP 40" but that was not on the official UK Singles Chart but on something called the "Music Week Commercial Pop Chart". I cannot find reliable confirmation of the article's statements about her songwriting for shows like Charmed and Buffy, and those factoids are only repeated in her own social media and self-promotional sites. The sources recently added to the article are actually about her handbag line, and there could conceivably be an article on Moni Moni handbags because those really have been noticed by the fashion media. If that company ever gets its own article, Ms. Moniaci can be mentioned there as its founder. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:34, 2 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 09:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Nassali

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

While I am painfully cognisant of systematic bias, that is by no means an excuse for a non-notable article to exist. Her books are held in 201 libraries, not very wide at all. Other coverage, like this is passing and of questionable reliability. While she does seem to be decently widely published, I've not found indication that her work is widely covered or impactful enough to convey notability by itself. Otherwise seems to be a fail of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 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 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hatch

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

A non-notable event. Coverage is limited to local papers, the biggest is a Cleveland sized publication, not enough to indicate notability. It doesn't even seem significant enough seem to a mention at BGSU to me, but opinions may differ there. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – The Grid (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC) Upon reviewing this again, couldn't this be draftify? – The Grid (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have heard of the event and I am hours away from Bowling Green University. A quick Google search shows that the event is "known" in that sense. The article needs serious work, however, the event is notable enough for a wikipedia article, just the article currently only uses the local news/reports instead of getting statewide reports. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 12:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see some bits of coverage, but it's all local/brief/primary. doesn't meet WP:EVENT/WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian D. Johnston

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

There's an article by a forbes contributor (not reliable), a article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette which is local coverage about kids who grew up in Pittsburgh-- and is about GLD, not really Johnston, and an ESPN profile (not sigcov). Rest of the coverage reeks of promotionalism or doesn't mention Johnston at all. There is no indication either in the article or on a google search that he meets WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NATH. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG but it also reeks of self-promotion. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be a notable basketball player or entrepreneur. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:00, 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 02:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heeba Shah

AfDs for this article:

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

All the Dainik Bhaskar links are trivial coverage. The Financial Express source is also trivial. Other sources are spam. I found some coverage of an incident she was involved in [95],[96], [97] and [98]. But that's WP:BLP1E. Fails GNG. - hako9 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of passing WP:NACTOR Spiderone 11:14, 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 merge to Psychological effects of climate change. That article does not exist yet, so anybody is free to create it or to selectively merge these contents to another appropriate place in the meantime. There is no consensus for deletion, but there is consensus to not keep this as a separate article. Sandstein 07:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-anxiety

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

This page is essentially a WP:COATRACK for a conservative opinion that alarmism is causing psychological harm. Not only this, but it looks close to being set-up to be an WP:ATTACKPAGE against Greta Thunberg. I am appalled it's being hosted on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

jps has included a mention of this AFD at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Eco-anxiety. You guys really need to have a proper list so it doesn't appear you are canvasing for votes. Dream Focus 17:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a good idea in the past and had proposed this very idea some years ago. The consensus then was that we should continue with the status quo. Feel free to bring up the idea again at WT:FTN. jps (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surreal, in context. Yes, it's well known that if it takes the form of a proper list, even if the whole purpose of that list is to find people to !vote a certain way, it's not canvassing. (Let's not dwell on the fact that literally all of the keeps in this very AfD are from ARS members, apart from the one "keep or merge"). Meanwhile, if you notify people based on subject expertise/interest, that is canvassing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was not listed on the Article Rescue Squadron's list. One person is here because he created the article, I and someone else just found our way here by chance. The nominator however mentions it at "fringe theories" despite it not a fringe theory at all, and two regular editors there commented in that section and also came here to comment they don't think the article should exist. Dream Focus 17:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological neologisms that are thrown around without MEDRS sourcing often find their way to FTN. As for ARS, my point was about ARS generally, since your comment was about general practice. That it wasn't listed at ARS yet all of the ARS regulars found a fellow member's article nominated for deletion and showed up to !vote keep, that's not better. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!ApLundell (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Psychological effects of climate change currently redirects to a rather lengthy section in Effects of climate change on human health. I think the appropriate resolution is to break this out into a separate article at Psychological effects of climate change, and selectively merge this article into that one. BD2412 T 00:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change is just one of many ecological concerns. Others include pollution, pesticides, overpopulation, mass extinction, deforestation, the ozone layer, invasive species, pandemics, atomic energy and nuclear war, land mines and other military conflict, poaching and bush meat, overfishing, &c. This endless succession of existential threats is naturally alarming. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What source describes anything like "eco-anxiety" over land mines?! WP:NOR. jps (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples:

Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "eco-anxiety" appears in none of those papers. Try again. jps (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look at this version by the creator [99]. If this isn't an attack page maybe a troll page of the highest quality. Too much spin to the article. I notice that edits have been made shortly after nomination here to remove the troll content. The POV of the creator is blatant. Disgusting. - hako9 (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly merge - eh what? I agree that this might be better off if merged with Ecological grief, but that approach hasn't found favour. Can't see any reason to holler against it on a content level though. The Greta Thunberg section was pretty OR and its removal was sensible. The rest seems well sourced and factual, and frankly requires a great willingness to project political innuendo to perceive as an "attack page". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A very selective merge with Ecological grief. Too much repetition of words and redundancy. The version of the article before nomination transgressed maybe all rules of MOS. The whole "Alternative terminology" section needs to be trimmed. There's no need to name drop a hundred psychologists. - hako9 (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BD2412. Reywas92^Talk 17:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was started on 31 March 2019. The immediate inspiration for this was an article that the BBC had published four days before: 'Eco-anxiety': how to spot it and what to do about it. This was the time that Extinction Rebellion made a big splash in London and I went to Oxford Circus myself to take a picture of their pink boat (right). Extinction Rebellion is in the news again and so I suppose that's the reason for this bizarre disruption.

The topic is not the same as ecological grief just as grief is not the same as anxiety. Grief is mourning the past while anxiety is fear and concern about the future. Eco-anxiety is very notable as there's a lot of it about and there are numerous books and papers specifically about various aspects it – a list of examples follows. The topic should therefore not be deleted per our policy ATD whuch states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. ... Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page." See also WP:CENSOR.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not voting yet as I'll have to think more about it and look at sources. An initial impression is that the "Treatment & responses" section seems realistic and not denial propaganda. —Paleo Neonate – 13:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and ARS comments. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an easy keep based on WP:V and WP:SIGCOV This is a real thing based on the many mainstream books and articles related to eco-anxiety. Andrew Davidson has presented several great sources. I have also found non-trivial coverage in Medical News Today here, Time Magazine here. Lightburst (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per : User:Andrew Davidson and per WP:GNG and WP:RS. I also disagree with the nominator; our guidelines are to provide independent, reliable sourcing, not determine which subjects should or shouldn't be written about on Wikipedia. The attack on the initial creator of the article is an Ad hominem irrelevancy. We should deal with the article as it is not as it was.7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think that BD2412 has gotten it entirely correct. I would also caution anyone taking the links that Andrew Davidson has put in the discussion at face value. Self help and theological publishers, student research and MFA thesis', and one looks self published.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD for ample news sources covering this. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/b2e7ee32-ad28-4ec4-89aa-a8b8c98f95a5 https://time.com/5735388/climate-change-eco-anxiety/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-climate-children/children-suffering-eco-anxiety-over-climate-change-say-psychologists-idUSKBN1W42CF Just read through any of them, they giving significant coverage of this. Dream Focus 17:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD2412 makes a lot of sense. Spinning out that section would make this redundant (except as a POVFORK, so to speak). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, merger with Psychological effects of climate change does not make sense because there's more to this than climate change. What gets people just as upset are issues like pollution -- I watched an account last night of how a single plastic teabag can release as many as a billion microplastic particles. I haven't checked that alarming fact yet myself but it was also published by the BBC and so seems reasonably reputable. And besides pollution, there's mass extinction which is mainly due to habitat loss. So, constraining this into a climate change title would be a significant distortion of the topic and so is not sensible. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about plastic teabags. It says that "eco-anxiety" is synonymous with "climate anxiety", which stems from fears about the current and predicted future state of the environment caused by human-induced climate change. There is no "distortion of the topic" involved in "constraining" it to be about climate change, because that is what it is already about. XOR'easter (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some people seem to think it's more than just the climate and highlight plastic pollution in particular. For example, "The saturation of media reports on issues such as climate change and plastic pollution, accompanied by images of smoke-spewing coal stacks, polar bears stranded on tiny pieces of ice and waves of plastic washing up on beaches, plays a big role in feeding anxiety about environmental problems." Andrew🐉(talk) 05:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article passes our notability guideline. Eco-anxiety is widely covered in the standard publications like Time Magazine and the BBC. One of the most detailed books appears to be this one: A Guide to Eco-Anxiety: How to Protect the Planet and Your Mental Health. Worldlywise (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very selectively merge to Psychological effects of climate change, which should be a separate article from Effects of climate change on human health. We name articles based on what is informative, not by what neologism happens to be in vogue this month. Nor is it cleanly separate from ecological grief; witness the repeated mentions of "grief" in the text (twelve, not counting the merger notice). XOR'easter (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new Psychological effects of climate change article along with Ecological grief, per BD2412 and XOR’easter. Brunton (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new Psychological effects of climate change article along with Ecological grief. There should be a serious article about this subject, but this is not it. It started as a blatant attack article, and became a subtle attack article. Tercer (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new article to the two above votes -- there are so many competing interrelated topics here that aren't being sufficiently disambiguated or distinguished from eachother -- per the previous discussion on the talk page, Sadads (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a separate well defined subject, not a duplicate or a content fork of Psychological effects of climate change because not all psychological effects are anxiety and ecology is not equal to climate change. Perhaps this page could be merged with Ecological grief, but this is an entirely different subject for discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Like others above, I think this article is best merged into Psychological effects of climate change along with Ecological grief. Having enough coverage for WP:GNG is only one of the criteria used to decide if an article merits a standalone page (WP:NOPAGE, WP:CFORK, WP:NEOLOGISM all apply). (t · c) buidhe 18:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Psychological effects of climate change, which is the neutral term. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Effects of climate change on human health, per others. The present form is in effect a neologism. Zaathras (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and link to Psychological effects of climate change. As this term is used in the literature and in given the American Psychiatric Association (APA) uses it, it is notable enough for its own article. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect If this is meant to be an article about the neologism specifically, it's a complete WP:COATRACK, as half the sources don't use the term. If this isn't about the neologism specifically, it's a WP:POVFORK of the above suggestions. In either case, it doesn't seem sufficiently well-defined to seperate it from anything else. I'd say redirect to [[Psychological effects of climate change, and merge carefully. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.4% of all FPs} 07:01, 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.

[1] ttps://emergingcricket.com/events/ec-cricket-calendar/

[2] Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, Fürstliche Häuser XIX. "Danemark". C.A. Starke Verlag, 2011, p. 10. (German). ISBN 978-3-7980-0849-6.

[1]

[2]