Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 August	8 August >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religious paranoia[edit]

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

This doesn't really seem to be a thing. Poking around, most uses of the phrase tend to be using paranoia in the usual sense, but in the context of religious beliefs. I certainly can't find any in-depth treatment that suggests that this is considered some sort of distinct phenomenon, either social or psychological. It's hard to see how this article could ever be anything besides some unacceptable amount of WP:SYNTH. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure paranoia about religion is a "thing", for instance China's treatment of Muslims. Which clearly from a place of anti-Muslim paranoia. That said, I don't think "religious paranoia" as a concept is really a thing outside of normal paranoia. Which seems to be reflected in the facts that the article is mostly written like original research and that there doesn't seem to be any sources out there talking about it as one. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikitigresito (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This entire page is WP:OR, pure and simple. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no credible substance to this article, except the fruits of scrupulosity, hysteria, irrational fears and religious fanaticism. Whiteguru (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: page is all WP:OR with a dash of WP:SYNTH tossed in as polish. // Timothy :: talk 01:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Zevitas[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Most of the "references" (actually ext. links) are dead. The best of the rest is little more than an announcement that his gallery is moving. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search finds nothing except reviews of shows at the gallery, and of course notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater@ 00:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of this article does not meet notability criteria GNG or BASIC. It seems that they run a pay-to-play art non-notable magazine where artists can apply (and pay) to have their work published. They also run a non-notable gallery. Netherzone (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, does not meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RSA Tower[edit]

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

I can't find any indication that this is a notable building in terms of historical or architectural importance. Nothing found on a Google search but real estate listing sites. On Newspapers.com, the coverage breaks down to a) hits in Montgomery papers, too local to satisfy WP:N's requirement for wide-scale coverage, b) trivial mentions in newspapers in nearby states, and c) OCR misfires that return things like "Pisa's Tower" as hits. There is nothing that satisfies the requirement for in-depth coverage indicating interest above the local level. I tried to substantiate the claim of a 1998 award, but also found zero results no matter what I searched, clearly indicating the award isn't that significant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find nothing that makes this notable. It's simply a tall building in a particular area. // Timothy :: talk 01:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per the fact that winning the "Architectural Precast Association's Award for Design & Manufacturing Excellence", even if it did win that award, does not confer notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just because this is a tall building does not make it notable. References are as per the nominator, useless. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G4, G5. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/V2burger. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miik3Murd[edit]

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

complete hoax in that this person might be alive but isn't at all notable to the extent that this article claims. Also it's a copyright violation from here and complete vanity spam. Praxidicae (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lack of notability is not the same as a "hoax", which would be an intentional false statement. I ask that the term hoax be either supported more clearly, or struck, Praxidicae DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel If you bothered to read any of the article or the sources you'd know there are 0 WP:CCS. Or do you think that this is a legitimate record label? The rest is literally made up, which fails the A7 test of having a credible claim and it was promotional and a copyvio. And yes, it's clearly designed to be deceptive as a hoax. But now we are here and will suffer through a worthless 7 day discussion about a guy who has literally no sources about him or his company anywhere on the internet, other than you know, porn. Praxidicae (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also please, do tell what claim there ever was. Is it being signed to "The Sets Records" which doesn't exist? Or the 5 stars at discogs from rating themselves? Praxidicae (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really love to know what credible claims of significance DESiegel saw when they turned down the speedy deletion. I'll note that I'm pleased they didn't totally fuck up handling the speedy deletion nomination and did at least deal with the blatant copyright issues. Nick (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of significance. The mtter is really no longer relevant sicne we are now dealing with notability, a much higher standard. Note that CCS need not be supported by any sources, nor externally verified. Since you ask, I considerd the following to be CCS:
- the owner of a Database and software maintenance company “Miik Africa” which is notable in Nigeria and rated by Google
- He signed a record deal with set.fm a music artist industry.
- He rose to prominence after the release of the song "Hard Culture", which was rated 5 stared on Discogs.
- The post caught the attention of set.fm artist world which decided to make him part of a record deal.
Note that, as I have previously stated on WT:CSD my view is that if at least 10% of artiucles with property X are eventually kept at AfD, than a statement, even if totally unsourecd, that the subjet has property X (say being a CEO) is a claim of significance. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is laughable. None of those are claims. set.fm isn't even a record label, a 5 star rating on Discogs doesn't exist. I guess you're not aware that simply being signed to a label isn't a claim of significance unless the label itself is known (or you know, in existence...) You do realize that in order for something to be credible it needs to exist, right? Miik Africa, as I noted above, literally doesn't. Praxidicae (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How do you believe those claims are both credible and are significant ? I find myself in agreement with Praxidicae here, if a source doesn't exist, meaning the claims concerning that source have been fabricated, how exactly can those claims be credible or have any significance ? Nick (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no explanation needed. anyone that can't see why isn't going to understand anyhow. 2601:983:827F:6B20:B866:9D94:22D7:FD03 (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if anyone wants to run a sock check for WalkerSoft, CreepLord, and Shedrack321, I am sure you will snare a few more names to add to the v2burger list. Even the Musicbrainz link at the bottom of the article lists all of the various artist names this guy has used, most of which have been deleted from Wikipedia. There is no reason whatsoever that the this discussion has been open for so long. Someone really dropped the ball. 2601:983:827F:6B20:F194:3503:CE0D:3C18 (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — By far one of the worst articles I have ever seen no disrespect to anyone. It fails to satisfy any known notability criteria. Furthermore, yes! If Praxidicae called this article a hoax she wouldn’t be too far from the truth. Celestina007 01:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Note that most of the above discussion is about the state of the article as it existed a few days ago. I looked at old versions and they were indeed full of statements that were definitely exaggerations about the singer's influence, and his so-called company is almost certainly a hoax. I agree that this article's saga has revealed gaps in the CSD process, but that's a different discussion. Praxidicae has since removed most of the junk, and there is hardly anything left because the kid has no reliable coverage beyond reprints of his manager's press releases in friendly non-critical publications. Good luck to the kid, but the promotional blitz to get him off the ground does not belong in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sea of tags on the article says it all. The "sourcing" aren't worth crap: Twitter, official site, Mp3 download site, streaming service link and an article on Medium which is not a reliable source. Google results are the usual junk like databases, streaming service entries, social media pages, press releases, lyrics sites and WP mirrors. The guy exists, but this article is certainly WP:TOOSOON. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. if not a hoax, but does not support notability. Alex-h (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speedy should not have been declined. Non-notable hoax. -- Dane ^talk 17:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounting the sockpuppet !vote. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemang Shah[edit]

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

Questionable claims as sources appear to be from a single source (i.e press releases). For example, IB Times and The Statesman do not have bylines, which suggest the articles are from press releases and not vetted or Editorial dept by the publications. Infogapp1 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Infogapp1 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Infogapp1 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is all PR trash. As a note anything in the "inspiration-hub" of Statesmen ought not be considered reliable, it's submitted PR trash. Praxidicae (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ab207 (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly promotional editor, always introducing bias and puffery content with no regard of copyright. Secondly, the subject's media coverage is nothing but a COVID19-conversation which has provided an opportunity for many non notable subjects to become partially notable. Keeping this situation in mind, any topic (including companies, organizations, corporations, people, and businesses) be not considered as notable that popped up in media during COVID19 pandemic. They fall under WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:INVALIDBIO criteria. Regards TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater@ 00:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete xwiki promotion, similar activities at simple and Commons. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. a promotional article without third party RS. Alex-h (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think this article should not be delted, because he have reference in TOI Times of India, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/gujarati/movies/news/gujarati-stars-from-sunil-vishrani-to-hemang-shah-share-their-reactions-on-the-ban-over-59-chinese-apps-including-tiktok/articleshow/76749438.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarknetQueen (talk • contribs)Darknet Queen 06:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) U¹ _quattro TALK 02:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isuzu Forward[edit]

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

Having no sources and being poorly written goes against this article. This seems not far from personal research with no claims to backup anything that is claimed or written. Wiki could do a lot better without such poor quality articles. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting rather than soft deleting as if this is not notable it seems likely there would be a redirect or merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Isuzu Motors since the vehicle is already mentioned there and it doesn't seem notable enough on it's own to warrant a stand alone article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a long running nameplate, definitely deserves a better article. I agree that those lists of alphabet combinations are not particularly useful. I have some sources too in my library but I will have to dig them up. Mr.choppers | ✎ 11:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Northamerica1000 we don't need poor articles like these hovering around on Wiki. These just degrade the encyclopedia if anything.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi U1Quattro: I only provided deletion sorting for this discussion; I have not provided an opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mr Choppers as well per the fact it's a notable nameplate - The article improving not deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main reason for the deletion of this article is this: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Davey2010 Ed talk! 01:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After extended times for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus (and no particular interest in deletion beyond that of the nominator). BD2412 T 03:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V-NOVA[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No credible third-party citations are available to support WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of this article is User:Randfiskin is also involved in launching (trying to work up on) non-notable wiki pages in a very short period, Cyber Peace Foundation (CPF), Vogue Institute of Art & Design and Draft:Vibhav Kant Upadhyay which have been earlier either deleted or moved to draft space for various reasons. Though the ID itself was made in 2017, it went active on July 1, 2020, by performing its first edit at Juli Berwald's page. As per my basic understanding, this ID is probably involved in "Paid Edits/WP:PAID" without disclosure. Kindly note, due diligence is required. (Similar comment has been added to the other AfDs) -Hatchens (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the claims are baseless and there is no evidence of paid. Note this account is created in March 2020 and the user is only interested to deleting the articles no matter whether it is notable or not you may check the history.

Special Note: This user is attacking the articles and playing with good articles. Most of his nominations are false and saved as "Keep" or "Speedy Keep". Such as IILM Institute for Higher Education, Care Hospitals, Krishna Shankar, Ansal University, Radio Mango, Zambar Restaurent, Baseer Ali, Liam Brennan, Dinesh Parmar, Biplob, Rachel Goenka, Pramati Technologies, Sayantani Guhathakurta, Shivin Narang, Artech, Audrish Banerjee, and there is a long list of "Keep" result. This account must be blocked immediately. He is destroying good articles on Wikipedia. Randfiskin (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Randfiskin, your allegation is duly accepted. If an article passes the AfD on its merit, then well and good. If not, then it gets deleted as per the consensus. That's why I have initiated this AfD discussion. Let everyone chip in and let the sanity prevail. (Same comment has been added to other two AfD nominations - Cyber Peace Foundation and Vogue Institute of Art & Design). -Hatchens (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe company has enough citations on reliable resources. Bagged many notable awards for many consecutive years. Clearly Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Randfiskin (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kindly do note, this Keep vote, is added by the creator of this article. -Hatchens (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again baseless comment which has no meaning. While creator has rights to vote or comment on his own article. This is the same comment posted on all other discussion.Randfiskin (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear Randfiskin, this comment is for those who will chip in their views. It is not meant to stop you but to notify others. Don't be aggressive. Kindly, stay calm and participate in this AfD discussion freely. -Hatchens (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well I am unable to sort out the notability question at this point, it's pretty there's something off about both of you and you obviously have a problem with each other that needs to to be worked out. I could really go either way with a lot of these myself, but I don't want to feed into either one of you by voting and I don't think anyone else should either. Maybe these nominations should be put on hold for and you should take it to ANI, because I don't think this is the place to litigate your personal issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Special Note: The creator of this article has notified the nominator of this AfD to WP:ANB. Kindly follow that parallel discussion by clicking here. -Hatchens (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Hatchens: could you go into more detail as to how coverage on sites like BBC, Financial Times, and Wired (Italian) fail to satisfy notability? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rhododendrites... for asking this question. As you have correctly mentioned, the entity has been duly covered in the following media portals - BBC, FT, and Wired. All three sources are good to go as per WP:ELPEREN. But, now comes another angle... all these news coverages followed a particular timeline pattern and that is - April 1 to 10, 2015. Before and after (this time range), there is no single credible coverage concerning this entity, which proves that these particular 3 media sources are part of their coordinated PR Campaign.

You can consider my views as mere speculation, but why I'm confident? - just check the FT link, - "Produced by Aimee Keane. Filmed by Petros Gioumpasis". Kindly note, both of them are not the mainstream FT journalists they are audio-visual producers working specifically for FT's brand solution unit (for confirmation, you can check their profiles at Linkedin). -Hatchens (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I dislike the article and believe it needs to be cleaned up substantially. I see WP:CITEKILL and WP:BOMBARD, and see it as borderline WP:ADMASQ, but I have checked the first eight references. I find sufficient in them that notability is verified despite my distaste. AfD is not a matter of taste, I fear, nor is it a cleanup venue. Fiddle Faddle 11:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Peace Foundation (CPF)[edit]

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

A WP:MILL type self-proclaimed think tank having near about no substantial research output or any encyclopedic value. In other words, this article is a straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP by all means. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of this article is User:Randfiskin is also involved in launching (trying to work up on) non-notable wiki pages in a very short period, V-NOVA, Vogue Institute of Art & Design and Draft:Vibhav Kant Upadhyay which have been earlier either deleted or moved to draft space for various reasons. Though the ID itself was made in 2017, it went active on July 1, 2020, by performing its first edit at Juli Berwald's page. As per my basic understanding, this ID is probably involved in "Paid Edits/WP:PAID" without disclosure. Kindly note, due diligence is required. -Hatchens (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the claims are baseless and there is no evidence of paid. Note this account is created in March 2020 and the user is only interested to deleting the articles no matter whether it is notable or not you may check the history.

Special Note: This user is attacking the article and playing with good articles. Most of his nominations are false and saved as "Keep" or "Speedy Keep". Such as IILM Institute for Higher Education, Care Hospitals, Krishna Shankar, Ansal University, Radio Mango, Zambar Restaurent, Baseer Ali, Liam Brennan, Dinesh Parmar, Biplob, Rachel Goenka, Pramati Technologies, Sayantani Guhathakurta, Shivin Narang, Artech, Audrish Banerjee, and there is a long list of "Keep" result. This account must be blocked immediately. He is destroying good articles on Wikipedia. Randfiskin (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Randfiskin, your allegation is duly accepted. If an article passes the AfD on its merit, then well and good. If not, then it gets deleted as per the consensus. That's why I have initiated this AfD discussion. Let everyone chip in and let the sanity prevail. -Hatchens (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization has enough citations that are from reliable resources and independent of the subject. Most of the coverage is significant from reliable resources and passes WP:RS. It also works closely with Government. The organization is internationally acclaimed worked with United Nations and many notable International organizations such as UNESCO, UNICEF, Google, Facebook. clearly passes WP:GNG. Randfiskin (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kindly do note, this Keep vote, is added by the creator of this article. -Hatchens (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per my understanding, creator of the article has right to put keep or delete vote.Randfiskin (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of course, as a creator, you have the right to put whatever you like. It's a Free world. The comment which I have added are for those who will chip in their views. It is not meant to stop you but to notify others. -Hatchens (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: vanity page maintained by WP:MILL and passing mentions. I'm also unbolding the extraneity above, which makes it appear that far more of importance is being discussed than actually is. ——Serial 10:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Special Note: The creator of this article has notified the nominator of this AfD to WP:ANB. Kindly follow that parallel discussion by clicking here. -Hatchens (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence - It does have the hallmarks of paid/promotional editing, but when I do my own search I do find some material. The thing is, I don't have a great sense of reliability of these sources, so could probably be convinced either way. Here's some of what I see, though: meritalk overview, some coverage of a program it did in partnership with Facebook in News18 here and here, articles on zeenews.india.com, higher education digest, express computer about some project with Google... there are some others... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to remove the promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move into draftspace: While the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated there and this AfD, it needs a lot of cleanup. Anything WP:PROMOTIONAL should be removed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to remove the promotionalism - which is somewhat apparent on first read. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; we do not keep spam even in draftspace; if anybody wants to write a neutral article they should do so from scratch. Sandstein 09:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and especially Sandstein who articulated my opinion very succinctly. Ifnord (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Locke[edit]

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

I can find nothing to establish that Locke meets WP:NACTOR. He has, of course, arguably been prolific, but I don't think that alone establishes notability by this standard. The lone reference in the article is to Maltin's entry on Robocop 3: it does indeed mention Locke, but only his name. The most significant hits I could find were this mention in the New York Times about Locke's narration of a Murakami audiobook and this brief description of Locke's role in Robocop 3. The most recent non-trivial hit I can find is this, on Locke's role in The Man in the High Castle. He also apparently judged one or more Miss Seattle competitions.

WP:BEFORE also turned up some hits on a Burlington, Ontario–based film director also named Bruce Locke, but I assume these two people are different. Notability tagged since March 2009. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Also, has been tagged for notability for 11 years and still has only reference which appears to be a listings type work. No content except for the list because there no coverage in sources to build it from. North8000 (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to show he has any notability as a martial artist or actor. He meets none of the criteria for either SNG (see WP:MANOTE and WP:NACTOR). My search didn't find the significant and independent coverage I think qualifies as meeting WP:GNG. Almost the entire article is a listing of shows he appeared in, but WP is not a place for keeping resumes. Papaursa (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an NACTOR and BIO fail. Java Hurricane 05:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 17:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 03:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sindh Institute of Skin Diseases[edit]

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

This article is about a pretty small local hospital and hasn't cited any sources since at least 2018. When I did a WP:BEFORE on it nothing came up except for some pretty trivial mentions in articles about skin diseases and passing mentions in the obligatory Covid-19 related articles that every hospital has. So, there wasn't anything that would qualify as in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources and make it notable enough for WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Also, according to some people in other AfDs hospitals are notable if they have over 500 beds and it doesn't even come close to that many. Adamant1 (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dermatology hospitals are very unusual these days. None left in the UK. This is clearly not a local hospital. It's a national centre, enormous by dermatology standards, possibly the biggest left in the world, and almost certainly notable. Its clear that there are outreach services across the country. There will be articles in Punjabi and Urdu. Yes there are mentions in articles about skin diseases. Where else would you expect to find them? The idea that over 500 beds makes a hospital notable would only apply to general hospitals. Rathfelder (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The hospital is neither small nor local. Express Tribune calls it "Sindh’s only skin hospital". Invisible Lad (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the Express Tribune article cited just above, I also found a Dunya News article about the hospital. It appears to be very widely used, with 4,000 outpatients visiting daily. I think the "500 beds" applies to inpatient care; this hospital seems to mostly provide outpatient services. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it's a made up standard in the first place I don't see why you can't make up that it only applies to places that provide inpatient care. Even the standard is made up, I still think the number of beds is relevant to places that provide outpatient services though, as a judge of the facilities size. The number of people who visit it daily is ultimately inconsequential and meaningless to notability. Way more so then the number of beds would be if it was an actual notability standard. Just like the number would be inconsequential and meaningless to notability for how many people shop at my local Walmart per day, how many people visit my local doctors office per day, the number of students a community college has per semester, how many tourists visit an area per season, how many birds migrate to geographical location per year, how many cars drive down a road per year, how many sandwiches a restaurant makes per week, how many games are played at a stadium per season, etc etc. But hey, since your just making it all up on the fly anyway I'm sure all those things would be acceptable as standards for notability also. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am basing my keep vote on the coverage in the Express Tribune and Dunya News articles. Your theory about the importance of the number of beds in primarily outpatient facilities is noted. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your the one that brought it up. I have zero issue with the sources. Except maybe Express Tribune is a little weak sauce IMO, but I'll leave that up to others to decide. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chollima Line. BD2412 T 04:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mangyongdae Line[edit]

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

This line does not exist in any official map. It bases off all information off one source. All maps (http://2427junction.com/70z-01032.jpg) even the newest maps (http://2427junction.com/70a-1z005.jpg) only depict two lines, both of which have the same colour. There is no mention of this line existing at all at any other sources either. Gorden 2211 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Gorden 2211 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Gorden 2211 (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a 2019 South Korean newspaper citation [1] that details the 1987 opening of the line as an extension of the Cheonlima Line to the page. Also, this map [2], used on the same article for the Korean Wikipedia and for Pyongyang Metro shows the line in yellow, albeit seeming to be an extension of the Hyoksin line. Perhaps that confusion needs to be cleared up, but either way, the Mangyongdae extension line certainly appears to exist. And, I cannot make out the pictures presented above by the nominator for proof either way.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnielou2013, Chinese sources say only two line exist [3]. Also map attached has an error. Tram Line 1 no longer travels over the Taedong River. Other Chinese sources present the so called 'mangyongdae line' an extension of the Chollima line that was opened in 1987. The image of the routes in the second link posted above shows that the two lines are labled in different colours, and there is no third colour for any other line. This name may only refer at most to this section and not an entire line Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chollima Line: If this is an extension of the Chollima Line, and the article on that line is a stub, that doesn't provide justification for splitting the line into 2 articles. Username⁶⁸⁹² 18:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Best option at present time. Nightfury 07:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, only because the line is not marked on a offical map. [4] But keep the info that they might be separate lines, like Daxing line and Line 4 on the Beijing subway, as there are sources dated to 2000 supporting it. [5] Techie3 (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chollima Line. As the article itself documents, it is really not a separate line but a continuation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna MacDonald[edit]

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

This subject does not seem all that notable. None of the sources establish her as being notable. Factfanatic1 (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long history as a VO actor and supporting player overall. Once again, just because they've never been in the 'starring' part of a film/TV open does not clinch an automatic delete. Nate • (chatter) 01:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a couple of sources and I think she makes it over the notability bar. Tacyarg (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I pointed out when I deprodded the page, the subject has won 11 awards and been nominated for 2 more, according to IMDb. pburka (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article support notability. // Timothy :: talk 02:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Regions of Thailand. This compromise is likely to satisfy the most of the people commenting here. Sandstein 17:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of regions of Thailand by Human Development Index[edit]

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

The list appears to be WP:original synthesis of a few published figures, and I don't see how it the satisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline. There don't appear to be any third-party reliable sources dedicated to HDI in Thailand divided by the four-region system. Paul_012 (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subnational HDI data was published in Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201938.--Afus199620 (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The paper is a primary source by the creators of the data, so it doesn't contribute to establishing notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The indicated source for the article is different. https://globaldatalab.org/shdi/shdi/.--Afus199620 (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which only reproduces the data without providing any independent in-depth coverage about the grouping, so it doesn't help establish notability for Wikipedia's inclusion purposes. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too obscure of a topic to be encyclopedic. Lack of depth of reliable sources. Knox490 (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Human Development is not an obscure topic. There are dozens of similiar lists in Wikipedia. Like List of U.S. states and territories by Human Development Index.--Afus199620 (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A look at Category: Human Development Index shows that we have dozens of articles about individual countries’ HDI by region, sourced to the single authoritative source of the data. There will be other sources discussing this, but the complete and reliable data is in the single source provided. There are certain kinds of article (e.g. election results, season results for sports teams) where it is normal for us to rely on a single source. Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Regions of Thailand, where there's already a section on regional economic disparities; this one can be easily turned into a section on regional HDI disparities. No need to have a separate article for every imaginable regional comparison. In fact, it would probably be easiest for the reader, anyway, to have all comparisons in the same article, perhaps as a table sortable by whichever factor they wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franck Guedegbe[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Regarding WP:NFOOTY, he has played in the Ivory Coast (not professional), Morocco (before they became professional in 2011), Syria (after they "lost" their professionalism in 2011), and Gabon (not professional). He has also not played for any senior national team. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he fails NFootball, because despite years of play in top professional African leagues, there isn't the money in African football for the entire league to be fully professional. Yet he's played on top teams, playing in at least 3 different CAF Confederation Cups for at least 2 different teams. He's played on 3 different top teams in both Gabon and Ivory Coast - yet I don't find one iota of local coverage - it just doesn't seem to exist on the Internet, and I find no newspapers archives. But I do find international coverage for this period for him, especially because in one game he scored 5 goals in a record setting CAF Confederation Cup victory. Also he had national caps for the Ivory Coast in the 2009 African Nations Championship but before FIFA started to consider the teams as being full internationals. I've added some references. Nfitz (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. BMB 722 (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user:nfitz. If you play for well known sports teams you can have an article. Flashy724 (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is literally not the case. WP:NFOOTBALL requires you to play a first-team competitive game in a fully-professional league, not simply be on the roster, while WP:GNG requires significant coverage. This player has/meets neither of those. Giant Snowman 16:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have struck the above two !votes as the accounts in question have both been blocked for sock puppetry. Giant Snowman 16:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines for footballers since he never played in a game in a fully professional league.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how GNG or NFOOTY are met therefore it should be deleted Spiderone 21:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I improved the article further, adding in his appearance for tournament-winning Ivory Coast in the 2008 UEMOA Tournament, where he scored a goal in the final. I've also found evidence he appeared for the Morocco team into 2011 - just before the league was considered fully professional (starting in 2011-12). What I can't find is Gabonese media ... period. Can someone suggest a good source of Gabonese newspapers archives ... otherwise I think we have systemic WP:BIAS issues here. Nfitz (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the efforts at improving and potential difficulty of locating Gabonese sources, I am giving this a third relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless GNG-level sourcing can be found, this ought to be deleted. I doubt there will be significant coverage in any Gabonese media, given that none could be found in Ivorian, Moroccan or Syrian media, though I'm happy to change my vote if there are good sources. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there isn't the sourcing needed for him to pass WP:GNG. Which I don't see changing any time soon. It's unfortunate, because maybe it could be systemic bias (although I doubt it), but we still have to follow the notability guidelines if it is. There's really no way to prove that's why he's being covered anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The only online coverage of him consists of match reports which only indicate he appeared in the matchday squad (e.g., [6]). There is nothing in-depth or that suggests this article could ever be GNG-compliant. Jogurney (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fernie, British Columbia. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Flathead Valley avalanches[edit]

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

This article, which has been notability tagged since 2009, doesn't seem to meet the continuing coverage requirement of WP:NEVENT. All of the information I can find on this is from 2008, although I'm getting a lot of noise from other avalanches in this area (there seems to have been another fatal avalanche in that area in January 2008, which is causing noise in the search engine). See WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE, this doesn't seem to have garnered coverage outside of the brief period after the accident. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the age of the article, I am relisting rather than closing as SOFTDELETE
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fernie, British Columbia. It's a noteworthy event for the town, but not a notable event for an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 21:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD2412. Pretty simple to copy-paste one paragraph. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Soul[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and seems WP:TOOSOON for this duo. The Knowledge is the newsletter of their local community, and the article was written by... er, the duo's brother. The links to the BBC pages only show an artist page and no indication that there was anything more than a single play on their local radio station. They may be notable enough for an article one day but right now I can't find any information that demonstrates notability. Richard3120 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page, the duo's self-released EP, which fails WP:NALBUM:

Richard3120 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete band and album per WP:TOOSOON. The first source in the band's article is a local fanzine blurb written by their brother, and the second is from a friendly fan's blog. I can find nothing else beyond the usual social media and self-promotional sites. Their album was just released and only appears in the usual streaming and retail services, with a couple of reprinted press releases, but no reliable reviews or other coverage. Good luck to them as they get started but these Wikipedia articles (band and album) are simply attempted promotions for the time being. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artist article has been updated and now has more references, these include multiple reliable, independent reviews from notable magazines, and other sources. The article is sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG and is not WP:TOOSOON. In regards to the separate album article, I agree with the proposed deletion as it doesn't call for a standalone page at present. OnlyOneRaider (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: OnlyOneRaider (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

There are still no good sources for his article. EarMILK doesn't mention the band at all. The BBC playlists only indicate a single play on a local radio station. Stereo Stickman, Planet Singer and Upstream Indie are all promotion/marketing websites inviting artists to submit their music for promotion. Last Minute Musicians and Music Trails are blogs. So the only source that could possibly count as reliable is Chelsea Monthly which is a primary source interview in a limited-distribution lifestyle magazine. Richard3120 (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first source is, irrespective of its author's relation to the band, an objective article by a journalist. It's also incorrect for DOOMSDAYER520 to refer to The Knowledge as a 'fanzine'; it's an editorially-independent publication. Moreover, the recent addition of reliable, independent sources to the article – a reflection of the significant coverage there is for Perfect Soul – means it now passes WP:GNG as well as WP:TOOSOON. Davebenphilips (talk) 15:31, 10 August (UTC) — Davebenphilips (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You joined Wikipedia just to give your opinion on a deletion discussion? And no, an article written by their own brother is never going to qualify as "objective". Richard3120 (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davebenphilips and OnlyOneRaider are passionately defending the band and article, and there is nothing wrong with being new to Wikipedia. But this is a site with policies on who/what is included, and it is worth learning why those policies exist. If you love a band, write about them in your blog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic resource in which people and things must qualify for inclusion. That's what the veterans are talking about here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The EP was deleted per WP:G7 in the middle of this AfD. The duo seems to be notable, but their EP is not. With more reliable sources added by OnlyOneRaider, the article is good enough to pass WP:NBAND. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: I've explained above that none of the sources added are reliable, and why. Which ones do you think are reliable? Richard3120 (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further to my previous vote, the article has again been updated with additional notable and independent sources, this includes Vents Magazine and Urbanista Magazine. As previously mentioned, the additional sources make this article sufficient enough to pass WP:NBAND. OnlyOneRaider (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:ALBUMS about the reliability of Vents, and the current consensus is that it's not a good source. Urbanista definitely isn't reliable - the website states that it's a platform for any aspiring writers. Richard3120 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've had a look at the sources in the article and I don't see the coverage in reliable sources that is needed. I concur with the nominator that the sources fail to be independent or reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I think this is a textbook case of WP:TOOSOON; Wikipedia is not the place to promote a band, if the band achieves sustained notability then the article will follow. Adding additional poor sources will not help this article demonstrate notability. Ifnord (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sopranos (pinball)[edit]

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

This survived an (mass) AfD 10 years ago as 'no consensus' and hasn't improved since, but we are now much stricter in our guidelines on what is notable. My BEFORE failed to find any significant coverage of this toy, and WP:NOTACATALOGUE of pinball machines... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 30 July 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, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2011-01 CSI (pinball) no consensus

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is zero sourcing provided that could establish why this Sopranos-related game is notable in its own right.TH1980 (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 00:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YEET Presents[edit]

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

Not notable. The one reference in the article is a trivial mention, and there appears to be no significant coverage online. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This comic book is notable. I am still working on editing this page and will include more references and examples to help prove that this is a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGWLOC (talk • contribs) 12:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only independent sources are a blog (unsuitable) and a passing mention (cbr.com). All other sources, after removing other inappropriate sources, are primary. Much of the prose is an advertisement, describing where the product can be bought and how it can be paid for, Makes no claim of importance or significance. I cannot find other worthwhile sources with a Web search. Doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP, WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see why this was relisted a second time, but since it was, delete per Lopifalko. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V. R. Nagendran[edit]

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

Couldn't find a single source about him. The review of Kaaval" mentions his name, but that is about it. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG when nothing is found. --Ab207 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although there is a lot of acting roles listed, there is no coverage I can find about any acting. His only directing role did not attract much notice for his direction that I am able to find. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 08:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Meikle[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. All the sources are about the business. On Google, I found one interview and a short listing in Bloomberg. Rogermx (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable bsuinessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scheithauer[edit]

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

After reviewing the information for this artist he does not have significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources. Most sources were from facebook, google play etc. VViking_TalkEdits 20:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the version of the article before it was slashed here by the nominator shortly before the discussion. Blabbermouth is a reliable source and RTTN is possibly but the reference that was left in was the worst of the bunch, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not a notable musician who does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obay[edit]

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

More than half the references here come from the actual creators of this advertising campaign, including press releases and promotional materials from the ad agency. Only receives a bare mention in secondary sources around the time of the ad campaign, which aren't enough to pass the WP:GNG, and creates a potential problem with WP:NOTNEWS. This article veers very close to self-promotion and trying to leverage Wikipedia as a search engine optimization tool. Jontesta (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting but sources are weak (press release, blogs, at best - very local niche media). This campaign failed to get recognition sufficient to pass WP:GNG.(Also, the article is badly focused on the fictional element of the campaign instead of the real world campaign itself).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly promotional or primary sources, without enough independence to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW delete. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mustelodon[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Mustelodon, the supposed type locality of "Lago Nandarajo" has no hits other than this article and mirrors. There are no other hits for the genus aside from a 2019 book which is presumably copying from Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in Google Scholar. Nothing in Biodiversity Heritage Library. Hoax appears likely. Enwebb (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add to WP:HOAXLIST. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 23:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, in 2008 this article was prodded, but it was declined. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 12:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above and add to hoaxlist. Geekgecko (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mentions of it in sources. Add to hoaxlist. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 05:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3 as a blatant hoax. I believe this is the longest lasting-hoax yet, clocking in at 14 years and 9 months. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -as noted by others, this is a fake genus and should be removed.--Kev min § 18:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The description also seems to be a joke, hoax article. PainProf (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all above and per the nom. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Power Rangers Dino Thunder#Cast and characters. Tone 20:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Rangers Dino Thunder characters[edit]

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

No independent secondary sources to write an article as per WP:GNG. This is very very long exhaustive list that's entirely sourced to primary sources, written completely in-universe. Even the main characters barely find any mentions in any reliable sources, and nothing that provides out-of-universe coverage to create a stand-alone article, with the exception of characters like Tommy Oliver that already have an article. This subject fails to offer any coverage that would allow this to meet the standard at WP:NOT#PLOT as well. Jontesta (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, classic example of WP:FANCRUFT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a fan Wiki. This article is better suited for a Power Rangers Dino Thunder Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Power Rangers Dino Thunder#Cast and characters, which currently contains no description at all, just lists of names. postdlf (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another classic example of WP:FANCRUFT that is suitable for RangerWiki on Fandom not here on Wikipedia. Pahiy (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - information is notable and verifiable as it was covered in The New York Times). Although most of the plot summary can only be sourced be to the TV show, this is true of most fictional character articles. Although the plot summary can probably be trimmed a bit, this page serves as an extension of the main article (Power Rangers Dino Thunder) which would become excessively long if both pages were merged. What works for most other subject areas (non-fiction) doesn't work for most subject areas about fiction (such as Power Rangers). The information on this page is clearly verifiable even if using mostly different sources and sourcing standards than ones used for non-fiction and many of the problems with the Power Rangers articles were corrected years ago. This is one of those cases where a literal word for word interpretation of policy and guidelines is harmful and takes away from (not further) the project's aims. Rules exist for a reason, but that doesn't mean any subject area that's clearly verifiable and notable should be reduced to almost nothing all because of a literal word for word mechanical (overly strict) interpretation of policies and guidelines.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gwildor[edit]

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

Virtually unmentioned in independent secondary sources, except for a passing mention, which isn't enough to meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold in the general notability guideline. Jontesta (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/not-guilty-masters-of-the-universe-30-years-later is all I can find so far. Google news search has a lot of things to sort through. Tagging this for assistance. Dream Focus 01:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 01:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient reception in third party sources to pass WP:NOTPLOT or WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article A7 deleted by admin User:Ohnoitsjamie shortly after nomination. (non-admin closure) - hako9 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Falak Records Music[edit]

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

Fails completely to show notability and nothing after a search shows sources to meet notability. Creator has removed prod tags, so AFD is the only option now. Ravensfire (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasia Foundation[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG; little if any coverage in independent reliable sources. It has had a primary sources tag since 2012. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article lacks any sources and I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial coverage in secondary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers. I think there's a reasonable consensus for the merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Bhardwaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as it contains only one primary source. Can't find any information on this person from a secondary source. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the cricket project know precisely where to find a second source if need be. However, these sources alone are being subject to much debate elsewhere than this. A single AfD article which can be easily fixed is not the right place to be having hundreds of AfD debates all at the same time. It is not the "single source" debate which is up for question right now. Bobo . 19:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep only because these conversations are being had elsewhere. Carrying out these same conversations in thousands of different AfDs is not the right thing to do. WP:CRIC members, can we work on our merging-related compromises before we go through all of this a thousand more times, then batch them together for potential merges if necessary? Bobo . 20:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The business of Wikipedia cannot be put on permanent hold until WP:CRIC chooses to get its act together. You've been debating this for over two weeks now, and this has been an issue for years. (And what the heck, with a new, tighter guideline, there'll be hundreds of AfDs, prods, redirects and mergers anyway.) Indeed, it seems to be hard to compromise on new criteria, but if you'll allow me some unsolicited advice, participants turning their attention to doing so would be far more productive than incessant complaining about how the nasty, nasty deletionists are ruining the project and how can anything possibly be done? Ravenswing 01:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen years rather than two weeks. An AfD is not the time or place for a conversation like this. "Complaining"? No. Frustration, yes. I wish these things had been decided upon 11 years ago before I did this. In any case, that wasn't really the context of my argument here. There were two conversations going on at the same time with regard to what we should do when articles met brightline criteria but people wanted to delete anyway - whether standalone lists needed to be created in places where they do not yet exist. Of all places, this is not the place to have this conversation. I stand by my belief that List of X cricketers should exist for all teams anyway. Bobo . 07:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primary sources do not lead to GNG passing. Yes, this will be thousands of articles because we have an absurdly broad notability criteria for cricket, but there is no reason to let proceduralism keep in place articles that clearly fail notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we're trying to work out on some kind of merging compromises on WT:CRIC.. It's easy to say "the criteria are too broad", it's harder to suggest new criteria to be adopted. Feel free to add your tuppence worth there if you have better ideas. Bobo . 21:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Context of User:Bobo192's argument here [7], [8], [9]. I am no fan of the sport and don't edit cricket articles, but prima facie, from WP:NCRIC, I think, we can't have standalone stubs like these. So the only options are either delete or merge/redirect. (Closing admin, please discount my comment as a vote of any sort). - hako9 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers would be my preference. We have tow matches played, a name and style of bowling only. In those circumstances I'm not expecting that we'll find anything else about the chap anytime soon - but if we do then it's easy to re-create the article and add the substantial sources. This is along the lines I tend to argue in these circumstances (see the links hako9 provides above). I could live with delete, but a merge/redirect seems a much more effective way to deal with the chance that someone, somewhere in the world finds some substantial source about him. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers. This approach has worked well for other cricketers for whom we have no actual biographical information, for example Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ziauddin_(cricketer). Reyk _YO! 14:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers sounds fine to me. Ravenswing 01:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progfest '94 (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The one genuine RS in the article is a primary source interview with the festival's promoter, so not independent, and more importantly, nothing to do with the album itself. And although Prog Archives is a long-running website, it's a community blog and not an RS, with the review coming from a contributor. Richard3120 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The is an album article but it tries to cover the festival as well, which is already a mistake. (Though the festival was from pre-Internet times, I did manage to find this article from the period: [10], and a few Google Books results in which it appears briefly in various lists of 90's events.) Since we are discussing an apparent album article here, we must use WP:NALBUM and the album has even less media coverage that the event that it came from, only being found at various list sites like ProgArchives, and the usual retail/streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: the LA Times article is already included in the external links of the article, and is the primary source interview with the festival director that I mentioned in the nomination. Richard3120 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - The article mentions the festival with little detail. It does not try to cover it. There are not many online reviews of this album as it came out in 1995. Several of the bands that performed at this particular event in 1994 are still active and it is part of their discographies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chutch15 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chutch15 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Having few online reviews is not a problem if there are old magazine/newspaper reviews. If any of those exist they should be tracked down and named here. Also, this album can be listed in the bands' discographies as items in their histories, but that is not a reason for giving the album its own article. See WP:NALBUM and WP:RS. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with more sources and reviews and tailored the description to be more focussed on the album release and not the festival itself. Print reviews of the 25-year old niche (but important) music festival are tough to find. I'm not sure any of the progressive rock magazines existed at that time (Expose', Progression, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chutch15 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the sources you add to your articles about Echolyn aren't reliable ones – Sonic Perspectives, Prog Archives and Dutch Progressive Rock Page may be long-established websites for fans of progressive rock music, but none of them pass Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, they are all blogs or community forums. I do sympathise with the difficulty in obtaining print media from before the internet age – it's the reason many album articles from the 80s and 90s are in poor shape compared with ones from the last few years, where there is a wealth of information online. Richard3120 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re-listed to allow time to locate possible or likely sources, but otherwise consensus is delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Chutch15. IMO, the annual event itself is more notable than the compilation album. Sources about the compilation album are scarce, but the sources in the article are indeed reliable. I found a source, which has a segment which briefly talks about the album. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the personal blog of a user hosted on the University of Sussex's website, that's not an RS in any shape or form. Richard3120 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "The sources in the article are reliable" -- seriously?? The first one is a primary source. The second is a track listing, and I am curious upon what basis "sobaworld.co.kr" meets WP:RS. The third is six sentences long (and I am curious upon what basis "expose.org" meets WP:RS). The fourth does not mention the subject at all. Neither does the Los Angeles Times piece listed as an external link in the article. Claiming that these sources provide the significant coverage to the subject that the GNG requires is, at best, fishing. Fails the GNG and WP:ALBUM.
And that being said, there's long been a notion held by some that if there's some excuse for there not to be reliable sources on a subject (pre-Internet age, say), the provisions of WP:V and the GNG are waived. This curious notion is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Ravenswing 01:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am yet to see coverage from reliable source independent of the subject. Orientls (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 only "keep" opinion consists only of the words "ACUM prize winner", but does not explain how this makes the subject notable in terms of applicable guidelines. Sandstein 17:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ido Bassok[edit]

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

This draft was tagged for notability a year ago by User:PK650. In January this year User:DGG first decline the submission, and now few days ago accepted it and published but without removing the notability tag (as well as the "reads like a press release tag...)? I have to say the draft process boggles the mind out of me (isn't it supposed to stop such low quality content from being published until the creator fixes the issues?), but anyway, as this was still tagged when it appeared on my new articles patrol list, I reviewed it and I couldn't find any in-depth coverage, and GScholar shows next to no citations for his work, so this is a WP:PROF failure. There are some unreferenced claims of awards, and maybe better sources exist in Hebrew? Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I accepted, because the only realistic chance of improvement is bringing it here. I know that's not the intended purpose of AfD , but it sometimes does work. We need a solution to improveable articles languishing at AfC. (consequently, I used not to accept unless the likelihood of an accepted article was >90%, but now I use 75%. There's no formal standard except "likely" . DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: I actually think that improving an article should be a purpose of AfDs, but anyway, if you think it is needed, why not list it here yourself? Heck, even drafts can be AfD and often are. Why just move it to the main space and leave it there, if you think it is likely not suitable for the mainspace in the current form? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I decided to bring it here rather than judge it myself, as it deals with a poet in a language I do not read. DGG ( talk ) 10:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{U|Piotrus}}, sometimes I do just that. For all the years we;ve known each other, I have kept experimenting with all the multitudinous options in WP to screen articles and to get them improved, and to improve them. None will ever work perfectly,; none is right one in all cases--I like to keep trying the various opt'ons. Of course not all experiemtns work, but I feel I have to keep trying. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a little digging into the list of awards, mentioned in the nom. The Leah Goldberg prize is awarded by the same university that this person attended and did his master's at. The award is not searchable on the university's website so I don't know the criteria but it doesn't seem to have its own website. The other prizes sound similarly very local, save the "Palme Académique – Title of knighthood from the government of France, 2003": this sounds like a big deal but at the time he received it, they were awarding over 7500 a year. asnac (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked ProQuest - at least at first glance the 7 hits there seem to be citations of Bassok rather than coverage of him or his works. Haukur (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ACUM prize winner. YairMelamed (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a bit hard to follow (I don't read Hebrew), he is a poet, and he has received local awards, but is nebulous on the international stage. This reads very much like promotional material, and I suspect this page is the work of someone's thesis, the way in which it is scribed. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Baudouin of Belgium and Fabiola de Mora y Aragón[edit]

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

Not all royal events are deserving of a standalone article. The notability of this topic is not evident from the sources cited in the article. Aside from the obituary of the bride, these sources consist entirely of blogs and short YouTube videos. Has there been a more significant coverage? Has there been a lasting effect? It is not apparent from the article nor from what I see when I Google the wedding. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I do agree that "not all royal events are deserving of a standalone article," I believe weddings of reigning monarchs are. The short YouTube videos are newsreel coverage of the event from the time. I am certain there are more substantial sources on this topic. I am certain there are more Belgian sources which I shall find and include, and I invite fellow Wikipedians to do so. WP:HASREFS WP:HASPOT WP:DIVERSE

I can certainly imagine that the wedding of a monarch would attract a lot of media coverage. Still, it is the coverage that proves the notability. Articles such as this one or this one or this one rely mostly or entirely on blogs and short YouTube videos. If better sources (academic or from reputable media) do exist, they should be cited. I do not know where to look, especially for Constantine and Anne-Marie, since I speak neither Greek nor Danish. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that most modern articles will gain their notability from easily-accessible online press coverage. There was obviously such coverage in contemporary newspapers but it is obviously much harder to access, but this does create an obvious double standard and WP:RECENTISM in relation to, for example, Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton and Wedding of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and Charlene Wittstock (both 2011). —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We certainly have our share of British royal wedding articles. I don't know, whatever yas decide on this one. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also have no time for fawning royal articles as a rule. However, this was a public event with contemporary significance, vaguely akin to the Wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer which did not involve a reigning head of state. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A relevant article that is not well suited for being merged with other articles, as far as I can tell. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The wedding of a reigning head of state is a public event that is inherently notable. An article on his nephew Laurent's marriage would not be, but Baudouin was the king when he got married. Piratesswoop (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francine, Princess of Montenegro[edit]

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

Having Googled this woman, I find no evidence of encyclopedic notability. She does not appear to have been of significant interest to reliable sources beyond those specializing in genealogy. This article is therefore simply a genealogical entry. Since Wikipedia is not a genealogy website, there is no reason for it to contain this article. Surtsicna (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete marrying into a deposed royal house does not give default notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources this article has are ROUTINE newspaper coverage, a website administered by her husband, and a user-generated genealogy database. No notability. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bixler, California[edit]

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

Yet another train facility incorrectly called a community. Durham calls it a locality on the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad. Old topo maps show what looks like a rail siding set in an agricultural district. Currently area is still primarily agricultural. No evidence of a community and not notable otherwise. Glendoremus (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Only legitimate "book" hit identified it as one end of a track improvement program. It's still a BNSF siding, and not a community. Mangoe (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per Nom. Also the census has never counted it as a place, see [[11]] Goldenrowley (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bixler had a post office. Here's a reference from the Contra Costa Historical Society that mentions Bixler as a community: "Historically, the area included communities now remembered only by road signs, including Point of Timber, Borden Junction, Bixler, Orwood and Marsh Landing." (Marsh Landing is probably Marshs Landing, California, aka Antioch.) Interestingly, although it is WP:OR, Bixler and Orwood are about 1 mile apart, why would they have both have post offices unless they both had communities? I did not look at Google Books nor newspapers.com. Cxbrx (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation as to why there were (at whatever times) two post offices close together is just that; things get done for reasons that don't necessarily make sense after the fact. The historical society page is a little better than nothing, but there's a figurative quality to the passage, as there aren't actually signs by the road for any of these places; I often check, and there was one case where I did find a sign and did not nominate the place for that reason. If they had said something concrete about any of these places, then I might give it some weight, but as it is, it's just a series of name drops, and it's not at all clear that they could tell me anything about these places other than that nobody lives there now. Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places. I don't think that having a post office necessarily makes this a legally recognised place. If it isn't a legally recognised place then it has to pass the GNG and it blatantly doesn't as the only sources are passing mentions, usually referring to it in a railroad context.[12] This source does mention it as a place where one family lived, so I wonder whether that's the origin of the statements that it's a community. Hut 8.5 18:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another erroneous GNIS designation. An abandoned post office does not an actual location make. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rafał Ohme[edit]

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

Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Fails to pass WP:GNG and ~~WP:NCORP~~ WP:NPROF. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As eluded to by the above comment, the nominator may need to reread the referenced policy. It is quite unclear why he should meet NCORP which applies to businesses and NPROF would seem more appropriate than GNG. PainProf (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PainProf, Thank you for pointing. NPROF added! Hatchens (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject may have trouble passing our NPROF, but it passes Polish equivalent which considers habilition sufficient. These days I support habilitation as sufficient myself but this has yet to gain consensus on English Wikipedia. Interested editors may want to comment at talk of NPROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Is that equivalent to tenured professor? I would generally say most tenured professors are likely to be notable, it might be more a case of finding out why, in my experience major institutes don't tenure random people and are generally a good judge of a broad field contribution (which is a requirement for tenure), if that is also a requirement for Habilitation then that seems to me to be a well made argument. PainProf (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all countries have tenure. I'd say its more of an equivalent of associate professorship, but again, it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#We_need_to_relax_criteria_for_academics and the thread above it for recent and ongoing discussions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In countries that don't have tenure I generally accept full professorship, I actually think that is met here, Its hard to judge this one, citations might be good for the field which would meet NPROF C1, one thing I can't tell, is he a member of the polish academy of sciences or he just works at their institute? If so its a lot easier. I'd generally give academics like this benefit of the doubt, I don't know the field but it isn't biomedical, its harder to get insane numbers of citations outside those fields. PainProf (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have decided that having tenure is not enough. C1 is met only by being truly impactful in the field. Another criteria is met by having named chairs, which 15 years ago when we develped the criteria was fairly uncommon. We have deliberately avoided making it so any holder of a full professorship in the US would be notable. It is time for people to look at what the actual criteria say instead of trying to craft their own. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and we have different criteria than the very broad inclusion ones in the Polish-language Wikipedia. We apply our own criteria to all articles, we do not apply different criteria just because someone is from a nation where the Wikipedia project in the main language has applied much looser inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: I just mean normally I'll be able to find a decent reason if they have tenure, notability within the field is normally a condition of a tenured position, its a decent rule of thumb. PainProf (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. There are lots of people who have tenure who have not contributed in their field enough to be truly impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Sheoran[edit]

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

Most of the coverage the subject received is recent because of the rank scored in UPSC exam, it classifies as news (for a single event) and WP:NOTNEWS. The other achievement is finalist of Femina Miss India 2016, which certainly does not makes the subject notable. Zoodino (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run-of-the-mill model and beauty contestant. The article says that she scored 93 on what appears to be the national civil service exam, and that she was a beauty contestant. Google search shows that she exists and uses social media, and that she was a beauty contestant and that she scored 93 on what appears to be the national civil service exam. Nothing is notable about having been a finalist in a beauty contest. No context is provided as to what a score of 93 signifies or what the distribution of scores is (but the number was probably meant to dazzle or amaze rather than to inform). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re: the 93, I think the editor meant a rank of 93, in the UPSC examination, which is an entry point into the Indian Administrative Service, Indian Foreign Service amongst other civil services. That said, I do support the delete recommendation, and I will add it as a separate line item to avoid confusion. Ktin (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of enduring notability presently. Winning a non-notable beauty pageant, and cracking Indian civil services exam, impressive, yet unremarkable (per notability). - hako9 (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty contestant who otherwise fails under the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not establish notability as of yet. I am sure the UPSC is a pathway to many impactful positions on the Indian Civil services front, and I wish the best! Cheers. Ktin (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have made some changes to the page. Please take a look. She has been a real inspiration for many women, in India and abroad. Please be considerate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammybro (talk • contribs) 10:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such is not part of notability or biography criteria. You haven't made any changes to the sourcing of the article. In fact, you added an unsourced statement [13]. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If she is enough of an inspiration that her being an inspiration gets mentioned with significant passages in reliable, indepdent secondary sources than we will keep this article. Unless you can find such sourcing speaking of her then we will not keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.224.39 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ratchet & Clank#Characters. Mz7 (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ratchet & Clank characters[edit]

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

A long, long list of characters from a video game series, written completely in-universe. While there are some characters that have their own articles (Ratchet (Ratchet & Clank), Clank (Ratchet & Clank), Captain Qwark and Doctor Nefarious), as a whole, these characters aren't notable. After the main characters, the ones listed barely get any mentions in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. The "major character" Talwyn Apogee for instance is only mentioned in VentureBeat's online quiz "Puzzler: Match the celebrity voices to the video game and GameRadar's "Red and Green characters: Santa's year-round helpers". Salvage what is usable, delete and redirect to Ratchet & Clank#Characters. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom. Not much more to add, Soeterman's statement is extensive. WP:LISTN doesn't seem met, with zero sourcing that is talking about Ratchet & Clank characters as a group. If you purge out the in-universe information and characters with no sourcing, there's not enough content to warrant a split from the main article. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect and when I say merge, massively trim back to just the series' recurring characters like Captain Quark, and incorporate into the series article "Character" section, which can be expanded. There is some material that seems to be recoverable here so deletion outright is not appropriate, but definitely this page has to be redirected. --Masem (t) 15:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Masem. TheAwesome Hwyh 17:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Little to no reliable sourcing discussing characters as a group. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Masem. There isn't enough third party sourcing for this to meet the WP:GNG. But there might be some hope for this primary content in the context of another notable article, if it's trimmed down and summarized to the most important characters. Jontesta (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - per Masem. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax and/or spam. SPA creator Molee4real (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked. Sandstein 19:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swalah said mohamed[edit]

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

Hoax? This "$800 million businessman" is not listed in the Forbes article presented as a source here[14]: Ghalib Said Mohamed is, but whether they are even related is unclear, and in any case doesn't make Swalah notable. Trying to verify that he is onwer of Silent Ocean Tanzania did not produce any useful results[15], his nickname "Counsellorsaah" gave even less results. Fram (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the logs, it may be time to salt this article[16] and perhaps block or restrict the creator, who has done nothing so far but promote this. If it is a hoax, then we can do without them. Fram (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and probably salt as it's already been deleted repeatedly in various spaces. Sources don't back up its claims, and the Swahili article is only sourced by links to music services.Citing (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per lack of sources, not to mention potential exaggeration/hoax issues above. I was considering AFDing this myself, truthfully. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first ref is from Feature.fm, which is a members-only marketing platform: the second ref doesn't mention him: and the third is n Swahili, which I don't speak, but doesn't appear to mention him either. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You - Fisrt, thank u for your thoughts to my artical, i am happy for that. But i am a fresh user of wikipedia, so i believe i will learn alot while editing some pages, and also about the language the guy he is in Africa, Tanzania - east africa so our language we only speak swahili most of us. but the artical is about someone notable, i thought this might be my first artical to be approved you know how that feels.. can someone please help me to improve it. but even if it will be deleted i wont mind, because i will have a chance to improve more and do the best. ~molee 4real~ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for reviews Thanks for the early instruction about my artical. it has helped me to improve my artical more and provide more citation can anyone review and help to improve it more. please if you wont mind, it means something to me. Thank YOU. ~molee 4real~ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amani (dancer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article does not reflect NPOV: Ex. "She was spotted dancing at a party by a Lebanese entertainment V.I.P. and a star was born" Poor references -- mostly primary sources about Belly Dancing. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- fails General Notability Criteria. Thepilipalasgirl (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched Google, JSTOR and NYT for additional sources using her stage name and birth name. I only found passing references from unreliable sources and could not verify that the source was talking about Amani. The sources in the article are primary sources or not WP:REPUTABLE. This article fails WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there's no evidence of anything that comes close to demonstrating notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 16:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable. Like Z1720, I too have found no reliable sources on this subject. TheAwesome Hwyh 17:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pandiyum sahakkalum[edit]

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

non-notable film, fails WP:NFILM, no meaningful coverage or reviews Praxidicae (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — not worthy of a stand alone as it falls short of WP:NFILM. Celestina007 16:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreleased film with no obvious significant coverage Spiderone 17:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prithvik Pratap[edit]

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

non notable actor/comedian. Perhaps too soon but all I can find aside from this puff piece from TOI are passing mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am adding more references to this page. He is notbble actor and comedian. Kindly refer to reference section to view links from trustworthy newspapers and offcial wikipedia pages of his movies. Let me know if you need more references, You can google "Prithvik Pratap" - [17] His name is mentioned in more than hundreads of media publications.He is winner of Maharashtrachi Hasyajatra [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunalgadahire (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references in the article are listings, interviews and IMDb pages: I can find no evidence of in-depth coverage in reliable, independent, third-party sources that would demonstrate notability per WP: ENTERTAINER. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. - hako9 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. --Ab207 (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is well know actor in regional movies and making his debut in Bollywood now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.194.17 (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable actor appearing in non-notable films Spiderone 13:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somali Sea[edit]

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

This appears to breach both WP:OR as well as WP:Notability, as the vast majority of reputable sources refer to the body of water adjacent to the Somali coast as the Indian Ocean, and not Somali sea. A search for "Somali sea" returns few results for on Google Scholar [19]. Renowned oceanographers such as Henry Stommel and Bruce Warren for example state "The part of the Indian Ocean surveyed ... does not seem to have a specific name: no one, for example, calls it the" Somali Sea "in analogy with " Arabian Sea." [20]. Additionally, it appears this POV is being pushed in Wikipedia by a long term vandal on the Somali project, majority of non-automated edits in the article's history page come via IP from a specific range linked to vandal as well as confirmed sock accounts (e.g. Felinepaw) [21]. For more information of pattern of IP disruption in relation to "Somali Sea" please see User:TomStar81/Horn_of_Africa_disruption#Example_2:_Somali_sea.

At worst this is original research, and at best the usage of "Somali sea" in reliable sources is generic and not in reference to a specific body of water known as "Somali sea", as such undue and in breach of notability guidelines. Kzl55 (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Kzl55 (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Kzl55 (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Kzl55 (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Article is a hoax, this is entirely OR. Cite 1 is "The Continuing Conundrum of the Somali Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone", cite 5 says "Illegal maritime Activities and the Threat to Somali Sea and Ocean", cite 7 says "foreign vessels stealing Somalia sea resources", and cite 10 does not use these words together at all. Cannot read the other sources but it is clear that there no so such thing as "The Somali Sea". I'd note the same user who created the page also created the German one that is now just a translation of this. Reywas92^Talk 16:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research.Mccapra (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as based on original research Jacob300 (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 apply salt to both pages. A new article can go through the articles for creation process. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alkemy X, Inc.[edit]

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

This is a well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. A good number make no mention of the subject of the article. Fails WP:CORP Fiddle Faddle 13:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 13:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 13:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 13:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 16:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, salting Alkemy X as well. Probably paid for, definitely spam and trying to hide it by using different article names. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt both, per Joseph2302. The page creator has been perma-banned for spamming/socking. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete, and salt both titles, please. By the way, snow deletion really is a thing. —Unforgettableid (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably should delete as an advert. I will point out two things, however ~ like politicians, even advertisers tell the truth occasionally, no matter how accidentally, and if the claims in the article are true it may (later, if not now) meet GNG, so even if the title is salted, we should be open to a new article in the future; also, i think i've checked every reference (though i'm not completely certain) and contrary to assertion above Alkemy X is mentioned in each; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 14:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Delta Goodrem. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge over Troubled Dreams[edit]

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

Album fails to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS; not to mention, Bridge over Troubled Dreams has yet to even be verified as the album's title by Delta Goodrem, Sony Music Australia or any reputable media source. This page is purely speculation at this point. livelikemusic (TALK!) 12:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. livelikemusic (TALK!) 12:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the nominator, as "Bridge over Troubled Dreams" is the title of the singer's next tour, and it is not yet confirmed as the title of her forthcoming album. Meanwhile all we have is confirmation of a few songs that will be included. There is an old Wikipedia essay that I have not seen cited in a while, WP:HAMMER, which is based on the tougher WP policy WP:CRYSTAL, stating that if an upcoming album does not have a confirmed track list and title, there is no basis for a full album article here. The fact that Goodrem announced a new album can be mentioned at her article for now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delta Goodrem: Definitely WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - improper venue. Please use WP:MFD for talk pages that are to be deleted in isolation. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Piccadilly line extension to Cockfosters[edit]

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

I would like to nominate this page to be merged into the Piccadilly line article as that basically sums up all the points in this article. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. Presumably you didn't mean to nominate the talk page of this article, but the article itself. In any case, you don't propose that the article should be deleted, so this is not for AfD. Per WP:MERGEPROP, put a proposal on Talk:Piccadilly line to suggest this. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 13:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2015 ACC Under-19 Premier League[edit]

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

Contested Prod, Is this really notable? It is a under 19 tournament that doesn't pass WP:CRIN and has 2 associates CreativeNorth (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These regional U19 tournaments are not notable, esp. when they are played by teams below the top level for cricket teams. Compare with these examples, of full-member teams, that have all been deleted: one, two, three, four. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Tranmere Rovers F.C. season[edit]

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

Playing non-league football that season, clear WP:NSEASONS fail. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Almost all previous AfDs on National League seasons have ended in delete. See recent examples like this or this (and all the other previous AfDs referenced in that one). Number 5 7 12:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS. These articles are generally deleted unless there is well-sourced prose or is likely to meet WP:GNG. No evidence of either of those here. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 22:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments above. Giant Snowman 16:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as edited by Shhhnotsoloud. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Himashree[edit]

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

No need for disambiguation; either delete or redirect to Himashree Roy Leschnei (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, I was the creator of this page. I humbly accept your decision. Can we move this article to Category:Indian given names

Nalbarian (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point in 'listing' the one person with that name. And as to the claimed meaning, it is unreferenced (and a quick search suggests it may not be the correct or only meaning) and probably unreferenceable. Therefore there's nothing there to salvage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add an {{unreferenced}} tag. I have replaced {{disambiguation}} with {{given name}}. There is another use of "Himashree" at Hemashree which I have added to the list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahammad A. Qureshi[edit]

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

Article promotes the subject without establishing his notability. Sources are either poor quality or rountine coverage. Cricket Council USA, which he is the founder of, is not the governing body of cricket in the USA, so he is not notable as a cricket administrator and his business endeavours also seem not to imply notability. Overall he fails WP:GNG and the cricket project notability guidelines. StickyWicket (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's not really anything overtly notable here that convinces me that this passes the criteria we're looking for for business people. And nothing beyond that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 OYAK. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omsan[edit]

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

Not notable, may be merged to the article of it's parent company, OYAK. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with OYAK as said by nominator. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 19:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multicell[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources, this company does not seem to be notable. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an annotated website directory. We always need more sources than an article subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article sourced only to the firm's former website, which appears to have been defunct for around 6 years. Searches find no evidence that it attained notability. AllyD (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ismet Baba Fish Restaurant[edit]

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

Not notable. Just being listed in an advertorial list of Hürriyet does not make this restaurant notable. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The article reads like an advertisement. Keivan.f^Talk 04:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a famous restaurant, but not notable enough to have an article. Already has a small mention in Kuzguncuk which is enough. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 12:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nominator.--evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 12:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrifaessa: I don't think you necessarily have to say this, since you already want it to be deleted by nominating it for AfD. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 12:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment for the reasons stated by Styyx. Mz7 (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles require proper references and 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⁺⁺ 11:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Altınyunus[edit]

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

Notability. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a WP:MILL hotel; no significant coverage other than sites like Expedia (which is insufficient). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teknopet[edit]

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

Unknown notability. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Durusu Terminal. Mz7 (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OHS Consortium[edit]

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

Not notable. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Durusu Terminal. No need for a standalone stub on the joint venture constructing a pipeline unless it's independently notable, which this particular joint venture does not appear to be. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Durusu Terminal per above. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 19:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evdeizle[edit]

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

Not notable. Website is unreachable, couldn't find any sources talking about the website winning "Golden Spider Web Awards". Even in the official website of the awards, when you check the results for 2005, you can't see this website, so that award seems like a lie. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 09:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 11:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The websites are no longer in use so it's presumably defunct. I can find no significant coverage: looks like it sunk without trace. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The single mention I could find was this single sentence in Expansión. Evdeizle existed, but it wasn't notable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete According the website of the award [22], the "Best New Website in the Service Industry in Turkey" award doesn't even exist, thus they couldn't have won it. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 19:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for the reason given by Styyx about the award, it's lack of notability, and because I don't see a good enough keep reason coming along to change the consensus so far that it should be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as nominator.--evrifaessa ❯❯❯ talk 12:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selfish Dil[edit]

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

Non notable film. a WP:BEFORE search provided no better references. There are many similar, but none useful. I have analysed this permalink

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/bhubaneswar/basant-sahus-selfish-dil-features-newcomers/articleshow/68343947.cms	an external publication	Thsi is not judged to be a reliable source at WP:RSN	Gossip columm style PR coverage	✘ No
https://www.moviebuff.com/selfish-dil	independent of the movie	~ the site contains user generated content (reviews), but potentially useful for verifying simple facts about a movie	just a listing showing it exists	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Fiddle Faddle 08:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 08:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 08:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 08:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 17:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although Odia-language sources might help, I doubt if they exist as the cast and crew are non notable. --Ab207 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Emareyo[edit]

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

It might be possible to rewrite and repurpose this article as Lawrence Emareyo Foundation, because the references, such as they are, are more about the foundation than the man. However I see PR material in what look very much like SEO enhancing media rather than WP:RS. I note the creating editor has been blocked as "(Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes, likely covert advertising and sock/meatpuppetry - see deleted contribs and Omobascholes)" Fiddle Faddle 08:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 08:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 08:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 08:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore nabbing UPE 101 in Nigeria, almost any article about a Nigerian businessman/philanthropist is UPE.Celestina007 16:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waveya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and notability criteria. The article is very undersourced. Several of them use Allkpop as a source, which is not considered reliable by WP:KO/RS. lullabying (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comments and know of no reliable citations worth using. Delete.Yabunirami (talk) 02:28, 14 August 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, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2013-12 ✗ A7

Delete: No prejudice against recreation should someone show up with reliable sources down the road, but no evidence the subject meets the GNG or WP:BAND. Ravenswing 01:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 💬 14:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Tizzle[edit]

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

This is a well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. This is WP:BOMBARD. A random check of the references reveals passing mentions or no mention of the gentleman If it can be rescued, so be it, but adverts have no place on Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Article needs cleanup but I think he passes WP:MUSICBIO. HandsomeBoy (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Not too bad it can still be kept and amended by editors awareness to it's amendment project.Tbiw (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Might need cleanup but subject clearly meet WP:MUSICBIO with criteria 8 award here, criteria 2 having gone top on muisic charts and criteria 11. Kaizenify (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is so notable on all grounds, i have made some clean up and i believe it's in a better shape now----Brain7days (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Brain7days (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shailendra Singh (singer)[edit]

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

Delete:The articles is not properly sourced and the notability is unclear. Fails WP:GNG YashPratap 1912 (CONT.) 07:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. YashPratap 1912 (CONT.) 07:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. YashPratap 1912 (CONT.) 07:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was once known as Rishi Kapoor's voice and seems notable enough -User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 07:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respected User:श्रीमान २००२, the article doesn't have enough citations to prove that and lacks the criteria for a verified article.YashPratap 1912 (CONT.) 09:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YashPratap1912: Added 4 sources and maybe I will kind more in my grandmother's collection of old magazines. User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 12:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@श्रीमान २००२: Are you, in any way related to the subject?--YashPratap 1912 (CONT.) 14:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YashPratap1912: Related as a blood relation or for monetary reasons ? No. Interested in him as a fan of his works ? Yes. --User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 03:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant reliable sources coverage as added to the article since the start of the discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @श्रीमान २००२:@Atlantic306:Ok, now that the article has enough references, it′s notability can be clearly depicted. I think the deletion of the article is not required now.YashPratap 1912 (CONT.) 04:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator; sources given indicate the subject definitely meets WP:GNG even if they fail WP:NSPORT. (non-admin closure) Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Sievers[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NSPORT. Only one reliable source in the article, and not very many seem to be showing up elsewhere from my searching. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Sievers was the leading scorer with 119 points for the national championship 2001 Miami Hurricanes football team. See here. He also led the country that year with 1.91 field goals per game and set the school's all-time season record with 21 field goals. Passes both WP:NCOLLATH (first-team All-American as selected by CNNSI.com in 2001) and WP:GNG (received abundant significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources). Examples of coverage include: (1) Todd Sievers: Kicker, game-saver, The Palm Beach Post, 11/15/01; (2) From Ankeny to Pasadena: Sievers takes long route to title game, The Des Moines Register, 12/21/01; (3) Hurricanes kicker's home lies within enemy territory, 12/20/01; (4) An Upright Guy: UM's Todd Siervers is calm, humble, fearless -- and diabetic, South Florida Sun Sentinel, 12/28/01; (5) All Systems Toe, The Des Moines Register, 8/24/03; (6) UM's Sievers kicks off war of words, Orlando Sentinel, 9/2/02. Cbl62 (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Definite keep--to add to Cbl's sources, Sievers also kicked one of the longest field goals in high school football history. Passes NCOLLATH and GNG with both substantial coverage and multiple notable records, selections, etc. Nole (chat·edits) 09:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep completely passes WP:GNG for coverage of college football activiites in the news.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails WP:NSPORT but meets WP:GNG per the above sources. Smartyllama (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dugeon[edit]

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

Unsuccessful mayoral candidate fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It is pretty clear this person does not pass any notability test for any reason.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy was not just a failed candidate for mayor. He was not even just a minor candidate for mayor. He was a fake candidate put up because the leading candidate was not a long enough term resident of Detroit to be allowed on the ballot, and this guy was put up by the main candidates opponant because his name was similar to the main candidate. This might be worth noting in the article on the election, but it does not make the person notable. It is also a long standing tactic in Michigan elections to run people with names close to your opponent in the primary to muddle the waters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: JPL summed it up. Toddst1 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per everything. // Timothy :: talk 00:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsuccessful candidate. Wikipedia is not a database for non-notable unsuccessful candidates. LefcentrerightDiscuss 08:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This especially applies to people who were not even on the ballot. This guy was only a write-in candidate, and only a write-in candidate in the primary. That primary was bizarre because the person who won it was not on the ballot, but that man's name was Mike Duggan. Detroit has a non-partisan mayoral election, with the top two vote getters in the primary appearing on the general election ballot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, not notable.Ahmetlii (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates for mayor of a city, but there are no stronger claims of notability being made here and not nearly enough coverage to get him over the ten year test as somehow more enduringly or nationally significant than the norm for unelected mayoral candidates. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets NFOOTY, just joined another FPL club, sourcing in article indicates a degree of non routine coverage as well. Fenix down (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

João Morelli[edit]

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

Hasn't played in a fully professional league, no evidence they pass WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He made nine appearances and two goals in the Copa for Ituano, which is in fully pro Campeonato Paulista against other clubs from fully pro leagues. See his Soccerway Profile. Also, he meets WP:GNG. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Das osmnezz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
- This rationale is misleading at best - please see my comment below about how this cup competition is not a competition among clubs from fully-pro leagues (and how only 1 of those 9 matches would potentially qualify). Jogurney (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in two fully professional leagues, so meets criteria #2 of WP:NFOOTY. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Safe Charmer No he hasn't- the only league appearances he's made are for FCI Levadia Tallinn, who don't play in an FPL. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so Meistriliiga is not fully professional, and while signed he hasn't played yet for HFX Wanderers FC due to COVID. Struck vote. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's listed in WP:NOTFPL as a top division that isn't fully professional (otherwise I wouldn't have nominated this article). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302:, @Curb Safe Charmer:, He made nine appearances and two goals in the Copa for Ituano, which is in fully pro Campeonato Paulista against other clubs from fully pro leagues. See his Soccerway Profile. Also, he meets WP:GNG. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't meet WP:GNG, as almost all the sources listed are primary sources from clubs he's played for. And as for that cup, I'm not convinced by the logic behind teams playing in "fully pro cup games". Joseph2302 (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302:, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are not primary sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – several of his appearances in the Copa Paulista are enough to meet NFOOTY, and several of the sources in the external links section look like the required quality to meet GNG. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who made 1 substitute's appearance in the 2018 Copa Paulista against a club from the Campeonato Paulista Serie A1 (Novorizontino). Keeping in mind that the Copa Paulista is a state cup (not a national cup) contested by only a few of the Paulista A1 clubs and several A2 and A3 clubs, it would be a huge stretch to claim that the single substitute's appearance in the competition between two Paulista A1 clubs is enough to satisfy NFOOTBALL (his other 8 appearances were against clubs from A2 or A3). In any case, I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources, so this article fails the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Simple series video games[edit]

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

I redirected it, but it was restored. A long, 90K list of video games, released under the name of the Simple (video game series) name. But it's not a series like in a particular intellectual property or franchise, the Simple series is a line of budget titles by D3 Publisher, with different developers, different styles of gameplay and released for different platforms.

To me, it's WP:NOTCATALOG and/or WP:GAMETRIVIA. Most of these games, as they're run-of-the-mill budget titles, did not get much or any coverage by WP:VG/RS and just a fraction here are wikilinked. There's no relevant information about what games they are, how they were received, etc. It's completely unsourced right now; looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I get some mentions of the more popular games, but not about every entry ever. Delete and redirect to Simple (video game series)#Development, where the most successful games can be mentioned. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I don't see the relevance of WP:NOTCATALOGUE here at all -- the linked page makes it quite clear that "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic".
I don't see a distinction of kind between this article and well-established articles like (for example) List of Capcom games or List of Game Boy games, neither of which include the kind of contextualizing information that Soetermans is claiming is required. If you want to argue notability of the topic itself, it's already covered by Simple (video game series), with multiple sources in that article that provide ample evidence of notability. Goldenband (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This comes off as WP:NOTCATALOGUE to me, despite the comments made by other people here. The Simple series has gone through the hands of many developers, many genres, and many platforms, so this list of hundreds upon hundreds of games is already absurdly difficult to maintain and fix. Lots of these games I couldn't even find basic information on in Google, especially from reliable sources, so what reason is there to keep this gigantic (and I do mean gigantic, the thing is 90K) list where half the entries can't even be sourced? Most sources I've seen for these games talk about the Simple franchise itself or some of the more noteworthy games (like Maid Outfit and Machine Gun and the Earth Defense Force series), so info on these smaller releases, if any can be found, can just be added to the series article. This kind of material is best-suited for sites like MobyGames and not Wikipedia. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 22:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sincere question: what do you see as the difference between this article and, for example, List of Game Boy games? Both are gigantic, and both have numerous entries that in and of themselves are not notable -- and that seems to me an intrinsic part of listing the works of any notable entity, which will invariably produce both notable and non-notable works. (Plenty of filmographies include non-notable films, for example, as do authors' lists of works.) Goldenband (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of the entries included in the Game Boy list are notable and have their own article, which is why we have a list to begin with. What do you mean "and both have numerous entries that in and of themselves are not notable"? Both your argument and comparison are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which in no way applies to this list page and this discussion. There isn't any useful information here that can be transferred to the Simple article, and a redirect isn't plausable considering the obscurity of this outside Japan, so I find deletion the only outcome here. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 15:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you prefer, look at List of PlayStation games (A–L) and List of PlayStation games (M–Z) for examples of gigantic lists full of non-notable and redlinked games alongside notable games. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is extremely clear that comparisons to other articles can be highly relevant: "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability...and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." It's absolutely relevant that there are numerous established articles that have the exact traits you described earlier, i.e. lists that include "hundreds upon hundreds of games" and "many developers, many genres, and many platforms". If those traits are shared by an article that's considered acceptable and one that's not, then they can't be the core issue here.
      And remember, we're talking about a list, which clearly has criteria that are distinct from an ordinary article; in general, precedent seems to be that a list of works of a notable entity is itself deserving of inclusion as long as some of the individual works are notable, which is the case here. Goldenband (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - And by the way, I cite "precedent" because, for the record, most of the established video game lists by console or publisher fail the "Common Selection Criteria" in WP:SAL, largely through sheer size (i.e. the lists are over 32K). But Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works makes it quite clear that "The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles."
        WP:V seems to be the real issue here, and I've agreed with User:ferret that it needs to be addressed. But neither I nor anyone else want to waste their time meticulously referencing each entry in this article without assurances that the same standard will be applied to this list as to other, established lists of works from notable entities. Goldenband (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, per Soetermans and Namcokid. AFD is about notability, but WP:V is not optional either, and the list is fully of entries that cannot be verified with reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The effort could be put in to include reliable sources, but (1) it'd be good to have a hard percentage on what number of entries would be needed in order for this article to escape deletion, and (2) neither I nor anyone else would want to put that effort in, only to have the article deleted on other grounds (e.g. notability). Could you specify, i.e. quote, the exact part of WP:NOTCATALOGUE that you believe applies here? I'm genuinely not seeing applicable language on that page.
  I agree, however, that WP:V is a salient issue, though the vast majority of the article could easily be accounted for if PlayStation Datacenter is considered a reliable source (I can't find any WP policies specific to that site). Goldenband (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - PlayStation Datacenter is a fansite that doesn't have any credibility or editorial oversight from reliable journalists within the industry. So, no, it should not be used for this article, and it should also be cut from any and all other similar articles. I don't know why you insist it be used when it clearly should not, you're again going by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when it doesn't apply here. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 18:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please don't editorialize by claiming I "insist it be used" when I did no such thing. Goldenband (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - See this. I was originally planning to post it here but I instead decided to take it here. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The question of whether the information in question is available at PSXDatacenter (which it is) is entirely distinct from whether that site is a reliable source. I made no claims about whether the source was reliable in that discussion, and specifically raised the issue of reliability in this thread because I wanted an answer. That is a very far cry from "insisting that [something] be used", and I ask that you retract your statement. Goldenband (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Video games are not my topic, but wouldn’t a list of published games be self-verifying in the same way that a list of published books is? A work of any kind is a reliable source for its own content, it’s only when facts outside the work’s “four corners” or interpretations are asserted that secondary sources are required for verification. No opinion offered on notability. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Postdlf -- I was having a similar thought, which you've articulated perfectly. Is there a Wikipedia policy that makes this distinction, i.e. between simple lists of published works (no pun intended) and other sources that require more stringent standards for verification? Goldenband (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 don't see the keep rationales as persuasive. If he popularized the term "clout" and was such a prominent figure, surely there would be sources? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FBG Duck[edit]

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

With only one uncharted EP, fails WP:BAND. Sources are mostly about his recent shooting, so WP:BLP1E is probably applicable too. Step hen 04:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Step hen 04:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He definitely meets WP:BAND through rule 7. That is: "most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city". FBG Duck has over 100 Million views on YouTube, his most popular song with 53 Million views. He was one of the early pioneers and biggest rapper from the local Chicago drill music scene, a genre of music which has since gone global. His death was covered by almost every large news Network in the U.S., and around the world. As for WP:BLP1E, this only loosely applies here... as most sources cover his life, music and popularity in the Chicago scene. --Numkalcon (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- YouTube is not an RS, and especially not according to page views - David Gerard (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is not mentioned in the drill music article. Step hen 05:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is presumably because he did not have a Wikipedia page. Most people listed in the article like Chief Keef come from the exact same crew/group. Drill music being mostly a genre of back-and-forth beef, FBG Duck was from the opposite crew as Chief Keef. He was arguably the biggest rapper from that side. For some reason he did not collaborate with larger artists, nor did he do much media appearances. But anyone familiar with the drill music scene knows that Duck is at least one of the top 10 if not top 5 biggest drill artists of all times, based on not only views (100s of Millions) but also notability. --Numkalcon (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every source is seemingly about him being murdered. WP:BLP1E absolutely applies, and per above, I don't think that there is an exception for YouTube views. If even a few RS's had written him up before he died I might feel different, but dying, in of itself does not make one notable(with some exceptions of course, ala Jon Benet Ramsey or George Floyd, but I don't think there is much of an argument that FBG Duck meets that standard) Grung0r (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND as he only produced one EP and the references provide no further coverage of his musical career prior to his death. Also fails WP:BLP1E as the reports of a shooting, even in reliable sources, do not establish notability of the victim. Views on Youtube are not relevant, and no further evidence has been presented that he was a high profile individual. Modest Genius ^talk 12:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Murdered rappers will generate clicks no matter how obscure they are, and FBG is no exception. No coverage until his death, never signed to a notable label, released only one non-charting EP in nine years, and high YouTube views are a dime a dozen nowadays. Poor attempt at establishing notability by name-dropping Barry Weiss and Sony Music in the intro. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 13:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The subject does not meet WP:BAND through rule 7. Simply, the rule states he should be one of the most influential rappers - which he is not. As pointed out above, the references are basically WP:BLP1E; the subject really only received attention for being murdered. While unfortunate that his death was more notorious than his life, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ifnord (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a slim one but I'm going to create a rule as per WP:JimmyWales. Unless the addition of pages adds to a server overload (it doesn't) I see no reason to limit the sum of all human knowledge! Peace out Alexandre8 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were looking for WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Ifnord (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He popularized the term “Clout” in Hip Hop and was one of the most prominent figures in the Chicago Drill scene. dreamofdealers (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have a verifiable source confirming the "clout" statement? That sounds like a major stretch. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is not mentioned in the drill music article. Step hen 05:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentHe should probably be put in the drill music article. For confirming the popularization of the Clout thing, I have my doubts (seems likely that it gained status because it rhymes with about and doubt, etc; 'out' is a rather unique Anglo-Saxon sound, without too many rhymes for it -- although rhyme.com lists 56 rhymes with out, most are unusable). Whether he's the unique vector of the word's current popularity I do not know, but he did claim to be. Babyinthebarn (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not an independent, reliable source for his own claims. Ifnord (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Band FBG Duck is an extremely important figure to the Chicago gang and Drill Music worlds, as the most notable and visible member of the gang which wars with currently popular rappers Lil Durk, King Von, 600Breezy, etc. Many references from extremely popular songs, and large social-media happenings (Google "Smoking Tooka" or look up the Trap Geek video on King Von for some wider context), going all the way back to the 2010-2012 era, cannot be understood without reference to FBG Duck. Those who are submitting this article for deletion have a very good understanding and high level of engagement with Wikipedia editing, but in this world are newcomers, with little experience of Drill Music and street culture. Since Drill Music centers on gang feuds, the original ur-feud being between the BDs and GDs from these neighborhoods in Chicago, with FGB Duck as the one side's most highly visible proponent, and since this style and these events have gone on to inspire rappers from areas as diverse as East London and Dorchester, Massachusetts, I submit to you that if WP:Band is not broad enough to capture FBG Duck's significance, then it is WP:Band which should be altered.
Babyinthebarn (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alas, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of "drill music and street culture" and it doesn't matter if we're "newcomers" to the genre. In all honesty, if FBG was such a huge figure in drill music, we'd have heard of him long beforehand and he wouldn't have one mere EP release — which did nothing — to his name. He may have been a "pioneer" in a local type of music but barely a presence on the general hip hop radar. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. I'm not convinced by the keep arguments - we need to see evidence in reliable sources that he was influential in drill music, not just assertions.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate (except obituaries) any significant biographical details except this, which is a primary source interview. No indication of awards or charted songs. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:MUSICBIO. I am utterly unmoved by the keep proponents making WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments: if the subject was really such a key figure as all of that, there would be reliable sources saying so. There are not; the obvious conclusion is that he wasn't. Ravenswing 00:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samal De Silva[edit]

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

Unelected political figure. Article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:POLITICIAN. Most eferences in article are not independent and do not address the subject directly and in-depth. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any independent sources addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 03:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with a caveat. Virtually all the references seem to be WP:REFBOMBs unrelated to the subject, and I can't find a single source about this person. Caveat: I don't speak Tamil, and don't know how to transliterate "Samal de Silva" into Tamil, so I could be missing something. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN / WP:ANYBIO, most of the references are about K. A. Subramaniam, and those that mention de Silva are merely mentions in passing. BTW his name in Tamil is சமல் டி சில்வா. Dan arndt (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In evaluating this discussion, I assigned greater weight towards comments that offered analyses that cited Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly the general notability guideline. The consensus within that context is that there is insufficient coverage about this topic in reliable sources to demonstrate that this topic is notable. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Life and Liberty Party[edit]

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

Unreferenced article does not meet WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE revealed no independent sources that provide coverage directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 03:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just added references, there are a total of 3 at the moment--Lummymania (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lummymania, I just did a check and you may want to check here [23] about copyright issues and read Wikipedia:Copyrights. The text of the article will need to be rewritten. If you can clean up the text from copyright and find independent reliable secondary sources that address the topic directly and in-depth (see WP:GNG and WP:RS). I noticed you are new, and I know creating your first article can be difficult since there is a lot to learn about notability wp:N, what a reliable source is for establishing notability (which is very different than an acceptable source for information in an article) WP:RS and writing with a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. I'd be happy to answer any questions I can and if I don't know the answer I can probably point you to someone else who can help. Best wishes. // Timothy :: talk 04:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the closest thing to significant coverage in reliable sources I could find is a paragraph and a passing mention in the reliable Ballot Access News, seen here [24] and here: [25], but those alone are clearly not enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also (majority of my references) cited Politics1, which is a noted non-partisan site which also lists the Life and Liberty Party and JR Myers candidacy. Given the praise Politics1 receives from various election official across the country, I think they constitute a reliable source, and it would diminish the accuracy of wikipedia to exclude a candidacy that is listed on a reputable political information source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:D118:604A:658D:8037:51E3:24B3 (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. Sources only suggest existence rather than any notable achievement and there is no evidence of notability prior to, or during, election campaigns. Usefulness is not a valid reason to keep. doktorb _words^deeds 17:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The party does exist, and omitting it would do people a disservice. Not sure if it will be a long term political force or a short term foot note. Either way, they have ballot access and at least for this election are relevant--Lummymania (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A previous article with this party's name has been deleted through AfD already - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Life_and_liberty_party doktorb _words^deeds 13:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article eligible for WP:G4 speedy deletion, especially given how that was just a month ago? Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's tagged for CSD G12 too. I can't see the deleted version, but my guess is it's probably substantially the same and a month sounds pretty recent to me. Maybe whatever admin deals with this can consider WP:SALT it. // Timothy :: talk 22:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not eligible for G4, text is quite dissimilar. The copyvios have mostly been dealt with. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has ballot access in several states, there are far less notable political parties with pages.XavierGreen (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roothe Chahe Rab[edit]

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

Article about a song does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG - Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that addresses the subject Directly and Indepth. Results show mentions of song in articles about the artist, not the song. // Timothy :: talk 03:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At least in English, I can find nothing but press releases about the song's basic existence in what appear to be purely promotional publications and celebrity gossip sites. The mere fact that it was released, with a self-uploaded video to boot, does not add up to notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 08:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per the discussion below, nomination gladly withdrawn. The points in the discussion, while not establishing notability, do give a reason to presume there may be non-trivial sources that address the topic directly and in-depth. (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 16:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Moedwil[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE - For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS that address the subject directly and in-depth that would establish notability. // Timothy :: talk 02:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is discussed in this English language book and in English publications during World War II. There are many sources in Dutch and French. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive Gbook references are available. His radio program launched the "V for Victory" campaign in July 1941 in Belgium, that was started by the BBC.[26]. scope_creep^Talk 07:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've had trouble finding WP:SIGCOV and would note that the corresponding articles in frwiki and nlwiki are unreferenced. This is the closest to sigcov I've been able to find, but I can't read Dutch. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Concerns about WP:SIGCOV (mostly) aside, I think he meets WP:NAUTHOR criteria 3 and/or 4, especially 3: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. I think broadcasts of Radio Belgique count as a significant or well-known work. Or, as a recipient of the Order of Leopold (Belgium), he meets WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. (As an aside, TimothyBlue: you might think I'm being hypocritical by citing WP:SNGs when I agree with you that presumptions of notability still require evidence and do not result in a keep by default. But I think the coverage I've found, which is now in the article—aside from the Dutch source—demonstrates that the presumption should hold in this case.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cullen328 found a source that appears to be non-trivial. In addition, while the the brief mentions I and others have found don't establish notability, they do give a reason to believe there may be other non-trival sources that address the topic directly and in-depth. AleatoryPonderings brings up some points that again, while they don't establish notability, make me believe sources could well exist. So to err on the side of caution and not delete a potential good article, I'll happily switch to keep on the presumption they exist. (re: AleatoryPonderings aside comment: I always find your comments useful and thoughtful). // Timothy :: talk 16:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. $Salvio$ 16:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny International College[edit]

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

Secondary school article that does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL or WP:ORGCRIT. WP:BEFORE reveals no additional WP:RS except a few short WP:ROUTINE mentions. Sole reference in article is to a directory site with promotional content provided by school. The creators user name (DestinySM) may indicate there is a WP:COI involved. // Timothy :: talk 02:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this institution does not meet any reasonable inclusion criteria. The idea that every secondary school is notable is an unreasonable proposition when we take a global view and consider how many institutions we are dealing with both at present and from a historical perspective.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom--Brain7days (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note to kyykaarme - I'm happy to userfy this for you if you decide you want to work on it. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Embraze[edit]

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

NN band, fails the GNG and WP:BAND. No significant coverage in reliable sources found beyond namedrops. Sources turn up the usual suspects: YouTube, social media, discogs, rateyourmusic, iTunes, Allmusic (but without a staff-written bio). Notability tagged for over a decade, and no reliable sourcing for fourteen years. Enough is enough. Ravenswing 01:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band fails WP:GNG ~~and WP:BAND~~. I searched Google web, news and scholarly as well as JSTOR and WP articles in other languages, but could not find a reliable source or significant coverage. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- One of their albums was on the official Finnish album list, so it ticks that box of WP:BAND at least. -kyykaarme (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - This link proves C2 of WP:BAND. However, the band still struggles with notability as their only entry on the Finnish music charts is an album that reached #29 in 2006. Problems with WP:GNG remain because significant coverage of this band in independent sources has not been provided at the time this comment is posted. WP:SNG says "in cases where GNG has not been met and a subject's claim to meeting an SNG is weak or subjective, the article may still be deleted or merged". I think this is a time when GNG should take precedence over SNG. If additional sources are provided that show significant coverage, I would reconsider my vote. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Enough is enough. Well said. I am sick of all of these non-notable bands. And who knows how many are still left since WP is full of bands. I couldn't find anything besides all of these unreliable sources Ravenswing said. (I know Allmusic is reliable, but only if the page of the artist contains a biography. If it does not, it is not reliable, just like this time.) The fact that one of their albums reached the official Finnish album list is great, but I doubt that will be enough to save the article. Sources are scant. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that it's frustrating to see a lot of poorly sourced articles, but it's not the fault of this or any other band, and all articles should be assessed on their own merit. Also, Google search results are affected by the searcher's own location. If I turn on VPN and choose a US location, I get very different results as what I get when I use my own (Finnish) location. You said you could only find unreliable sources, but I found three album reviews in a major Finnish music magazine, and other reliable sources as well. The band was created in pre-Wikipedia (and largely even pre-internet) era, and they stopped touring more than 10 years ago, so it can be difficult to find sources online from such long time ago, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there has been no coverage in reliable sources. -kyykaarme (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyykaarme:, if you can post those links so we can peek at them, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination if they're satisfactory. And it could be worse, GhostDestroyer100 -- you're seeing the AfDs that Boleyn and I've been putting up, but what you're not seeing is the tidal wave of NN albums posted for barely notable bands, likewise tagged for many years, likewise unsourced. Those at least can be redirected to the band articles. (And hmm. I have a VPN that has dozens of nodes around the world, one in Finland. Might try that myself.) Ravenswing 19:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not blaming this or any other band. I just think it is unacceptable that so many bands with unreliable sources or completely unsourced, manage to stay here. This goes directly against Wikipedia's guidelines imo, and Wikipedia's main principle is to have reliable sources. No reliable sources - no article. With this being said there are so many non-notable bands and I can't believe they manage to stay here. But I am not blaming the band itself for that, that would be stupid. I get it: there may have been reliable sources, in print media (and if this band is from a pre-Internet/pre-WP era, I have no doubts they are covered in print sources, but I couldn't find them). Anyways I can't track down print sources, I don't know how to do that, but those three album reviews sound awesome. Can you please present them? I then put them to the article and then I change my opinion. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have also seen lots and lots of NN albums by NN (or barely notable) bands which also managed to stay here for far too long. That's a shame as well. There is also the following case: the band is notable but the album is not. I have seen quite a lot of that too. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Romano Pyramid House[edit]

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

The article relies entirely on a single source, and when I went looking for more sources to confirm the demolition and the demolition date (I've been updating demolition category tags) I found absolutely nothing aside from one exceptionally brief mention here. Fails WP:GNG. (EDIT: was surprised to see this was the second AfD on the article, but the first one was a no consensus without a particularly compelling argument to keep.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 01:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 01:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The structure is, was, a long way from notability. The wistful Floridian details (Monte just disappeared -- ?) are perfect for the newspaper article it came from, but not in an encyclopedia. --Lockley (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability aside from single source. –dlthewave ☎ 17:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Wangan_Midnight_characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Wangan Midnight characters

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

Persistent vandalism from several Indonesian IP addresses, no clarified source material, page neglect, and most of the information could have served a better purpose on the main Wangan Midnight page. FlynnR13 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, and integrate into main Wangan Midnight page~~ - Abundance of unsourced/dubiously-sourced content. Furthermore, the article is written in a non-encyclopedic style (WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTPLOT). User:FlynnR13 brings up a good point - a short character list, focusing on just the main series characters with short descriptions, would be adequate, and could be kept on the main Wangan Midnight page. Such a section already exists on the main page and could edited to improve its quality. It is worth noting that precedent for deletion exists, with the similar case of WP:AFD/List_of_Initial_D_Characters. --2DKomplex (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not clear if the second participant is advocating delete or merge (merge and delete isn't a good option see WP:MAD)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to being un-sourced and being mostly plot. Normally I'd go for merging, but I don't think it's a good idea in this case. Since the content isn't sourced. Someone can easily recreate what's worth including in the main article once sources appear if they do without all the plot stuff anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the article is unsourced, it fails WP:LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In light of the comments above, I withdraw my proposal to merge the article in question with its main page, and we should simply delete the article instead. Given the article's issues with unsourced content, poor style and fancruft, merger is inappropriate. --2DKomplex (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remy W. Trafelet[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage regarding business, but no secondary BLP sources. scope_creep^Talk 17:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 17:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 17:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Keep. Subject is featured in full-length articles (WP:RS) from The New York Times, Financial Times, Institutional Investor, and in print in the industry journal Absolute Return. WP:GNG He is notable for his business activity, particularly during the early-mid 2000s, but also in the 2010s, with more local-level coverage in the past two years. Minor coverage was used to flesh out the article, not to establish notability. --TardyMarmot (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: TardyMarmot (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. scope_creep^Talk 19:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything notable about him, PR --Devokewater @ 12:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there are reliable sources already in the article, such as the New York Times, but whether they are significant coverage overall is open to debate. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like all the sources are about other things besides this person and that he is only mentioned extremely briefly in them. What there is about him is also extremely trivial. So, there isn't the in-depth coverage that's needed for this person to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anybody else commenting here should be sure to read the coverage in the New York Times about this person, which goes on for paragraph after paragraph, and easily exceeds the threshold of significant coverage. The Naples Daily Times coverage may not be in as impressive a publication but their coverage is significant as well and that paper appears to be reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The New York Times article, "High-Flying Hedge Fund Falls Back to Earth", is indeed significant coverage of Trafelet. It's quite a long article entirely focused on him. I'm surprised that other participants seem to discount this coverage. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm not discounting it, but as everyone here (especially you) should know it takes "multiple" in-depth sources for something to be notable and last I checked the single New York Times article isn't "multiple" in-depth sources. No matter how in-depth it is. Adamant1 (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unclear rationale ft and nyt both in depth. Ft is also highly reliable and significant. After seeing these two I stopped - one profile maybe luck, two profiles clearly notable. PainProf (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to read the Financial Times article since I don't have a subscription. I take it you do since your saying it's in-depth? If so, maybe I'll consult you the next time an article that's referenced to them comes up in an AfD. Although generally I don't think we should take a single persons word on something when it comes if something should be deleted or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full length and entirely based on him. Nearly everything can be accessed by university subscriptions :). PainProf (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sourcing identified so far. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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