Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 September	14 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robowar (film)

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

I added several reviews which I felt established the film's notability. I found more citations than I added, but another user undid my edit saying that the reviews didn't count toward notability. Instead of an edit war, let's let AfD decide. If this article survives the AfD, the notability tag must go. If it fails, then the article goes. Thanks. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and return the deleted reviews. I sense they are robust reviews with critical commentary, as per WP:FILM these reviews are not plot summaries without critical commentary,. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep the film passes wp:film so it should stay. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The movie has received some coverage. And I found some reliable sources which talk about the movie: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. That said, the article easily passes WP:NFILM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The film passes notability. The edit war on the page shouldn't determine whether this film passes notability or not. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 12:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough sources to pass notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chacho Gaytán

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

No indication of notability whatsoever. The article has been entirely unsourced for over 13 years and the information provided in it is not sufficient enough to establish notability. I also wasn't able to find any reliable sources. The article needs to be deleted in my opinion. Keivan.f^Talk 21:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was nominated for a Latin Grammy Award for best Latin childrens' album, meeting #8 on WP:NM, assuming this also applies to producers. Book reference here: [8] Paisarepa (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. If he meets the criteria then it can stay I guess. Let’s see what the other users think. I also really couldn’t look into Spanish language sources. But if you or others can find reliable references, please add them to the article because it’s currently a disaster, both in terms of structure and referencing. Keivan.f^Talk 23:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep the subject seemed notable in Mexico. I have tried to clean up the article, added some resources. Hope it can stay now. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the Latin Grammy Award and the additional sources Mamushir has added Paisarepa 20:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple references to reliable sources coverage have been added to the article that show a pass of WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 01:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Fardin

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

Review of reputation پیام نگار (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. پیام نگار (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: dubious claims of popularity/significance and the references either have nothing to do with him (e.g. an academic journal article by someone with the same surname) or are self-published (e.g. a subreddit that he created about himself which has exactly one post - by himself). ... discospinster _talk 21:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Speedy declined!?! 2601:983:827F:6B20:DF4:D740:1AEE:557D (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And can we block the socks. 2601:983:827F:6B20:DF4:D740:1AEE:557D (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are mostly unrelated to him. Lines like 'A video was uploaded to YouTube a year or two ago that contained revealing content about some officials', 'The YouTube channel gradually became popular and became popular as the music mafia became more popular in the country and expanded its activities.', 'The channel's director is Amin Fardin, who lives abroad' are falling under wp:promotion and wp:puffery. The person is not notable. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 22:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5 - created by a sockpuppet of ArmanAfifeh. Ahmad^talk 14:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per ahmad Mardetanha (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Mardetanha Mardetanha--GeskepIR (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments to keep are very poorly reasoned. The existence of an analogous article on gun violence has absolutely nothing to do with whether this article should exist; the existence of this article depends solely on the coverage that this topic has received. Some !votes do touch on the coverage, but there another problem emerges, namely that the coverage being pointed to already has been handled elsewhere. Nobody can deny vehicles are used as a tool of violence, but when the sources are largely referring to Vehicle-ramming attack, which already exists, they cannot also contribute to notability here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicular violence in the United States

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

This article is a textbook case of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It claims there is an inherent notability in the topic of "vehicular violence", and yet the definition it offers for such a term is highly generalized, redundant, and even inaccurate. The article mostly talks about road transport accidents and related statistics, which is most certainly not vehicular violence, at least from how I understand it based on the term's malicious connotation. That topic is already covered by such articles as traffic collision.

The other topics mentioned in the article already have well-developed articles of their own, e.g. road rage, hit and run, vehicle-ramming attack, car bomb (I'm actually not even sure how that fits into vehicular violence), drive-by shooting (another topic that was somehow lumped into the article's topic), etc. Overall, the topic seems poorly defined, with confusing criteria and a complete redundancy to its name. Love of Corey (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a case of WP:SYNTH if I've ever seen one. The title itself is already problematic, as this is not a widely used or discussed term as far as I can see. I can only find one real case of it being used, in a university paper that was published in a geographic journal, and even then, the term is exclusively being used to describe cases of vehicular manslaughter, and not any of the other topics covered here. While each section is sourced, linking these separate things (accidents, drive by shootings, bombings) into one topic by virtue of the fact that they all involve automobiles in some way is not a conclusion that seems to be supported by actual reliable sources, and was synthesized by the author to create this overall topic. That goes for the odd sections at the end about the California car buying program as well - there are no sources linking it to the topics covered in the rest of the article, particularly since that program was established to fight air pollution, not "vehicular violence". Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Apologies, I inadvertently was not doing proper searches before, so I have to take back that the term "Vehicular Violence" is not widely used - the term is a common one, but again, seems to only be referring to cases of vehicular manslaughter or other cases of injury caused by operating an automobile, and not any of the other included examples (bombings, transporting weapons, drive-bys, etc.). So, all of the arguments of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH still apply. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The title and format of subject article follow the long-established article Gun violence in the United States, which similarly covers a subject with a number of well-developed articles on subordinate topics. Many of the objections raised here have previously been discussed in the archives of the talk page for that article. Since the gun violence article includes accidental firearm injuries, it seems appropriate this article should include injuries from vehicular accidents. I suggest violence describes the effect rather than the intent. An earthquake or tornado may be described as violent without implying any malice. The difficulty separating accidental firearms deaths from intentional shootings or separating justifiable police shootings from police brutality is similar to the difficulty in differentiating vehicle ramming attacks from accidental collisions or determining appropriate speeds under conditions at the time of collisions. Investigators may have varying points of view. The common thread between the two articles is the similar number of deaths and injuries resulting from use of different machines. Thewellman (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You make good points in regards to the coverage of both accidental and intentional accidents/collisions in one article. But, its the coverage of that combined with many of the other sections that make this article problematic, in my opinion. The topics such as drive-by shootings, transporting weapons, and usage of cars as car bombs are not really covered together in any of the sources along with accidents/ramming attacks, nor do I see the term vehicular violence commonly applied to such things. And that is what makes this article seem very heavy on synthesis. And that last section on the buy-back program seems very out of place since, as I mentioned, that program was developed specifically to get junk cars that have high levels of emissions and bad fuel efficiency out of use, not to combat any of the above mentioned issues of violence. If the article was pared down and better defined to cover specifically what is commonly defined as "vehicular violence", then I could probably get on board with it. But as it stands, the WP:SYNTH material needs to go. Rorshacma (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Intentional "vehicular violence" is a very real phenomenon, if there is not enough coverage to have an article specifically for the United States maybe a move and broadening of the subject matter to all countries could be made.★Trekker (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned before, there are already articles that talk about violence involving vehicles, e.g. road rage, hit and run, and vehicle-ramming attack. The topic of "vehicular violence" seems way too general, and I don't see the point of lumping these distinct ideas together under one umbrella. Love of Corey (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point to it, because automobiles are a studied cause of injury and death, just like guns are with the gun violence article. Also, there are articles on automobile safety, dependency, effect on society, environmental impact, etc. This article is in line with those in showing effects of automobile usage.

ɱ

(talk) 21:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on automobile safety, and it's called traffic collision. Love of Corey (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a clear-cut case of synthesis. "Violence" is a loaded term to begin with, and the fact that nearly half of this article is about collision, injury, and ownership statistics would seem to imply a link between vehicle ownership and intentional violence, which in addition to being original research sounds like POV-pushing. --Sable232 (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Follows standard in Gun violence in the United States. Seems to be the only article focusing on all the dangers of automobiles together, so it's important to keep even if it requires reworking. $ɱ$ (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of the article traffic collision? Love of Corey (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have other pages very similar to this, and this article follows the standards of those very well. This is a topic of reasonable interest which I think is worth covering. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind listing these pages that you mentioned? And no, gun violence in the United States doesn't count; @My very best wishes: just proved how that analogy doesn't work. Love of Corey (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep, but fix lots of issues. What a mess, verging on WP:TNT. What do routine, unintentional traffic accidents have to do with vehicular violence? Delete the Speed, Vehicle ownership, Costs and Vehicle buyback programs sections to begin with. Also remove the statistics in the intro. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful article, but needs major updates, and cleanup. New3400 (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike Gun violence in the United States, it does not exist as a single coherent subject/topic. Google scholar search produces 1 result to a source of questionable quality, Google books produces 1, etc. One can find some, but they are not really on the subject of this page. Hence this is classic Wikipedia:COATRACK and therefore WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One would have a trouble even with creating a page on Vehicular violence in general, not necessarily in the US. Basically, there is no such thing as Vehicular violence. There are road rage, hit and run, vehicle-ramming attack, car bomb, drive-by shooting, but those are all different subjects. There is nothing to blame the car, specifically in US. "Gun violence in the United States" is a notable subject because there are laws in the US which create or allows such violence. There is nothing like that about cars in the US. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you talkin' about, Willis? "Viewing Vehicular Violence through a Wide Angle Lens: Contributing Factors and a Proposed Framework" (Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice), "Vehicular Violence Accountability Act Proposed Statute" (Manhattan District Attorney's Office), "The New Tools of Terror: Vehicular Violence at Center of Recent Attacks" (ABC News), "Motor vehicles are weapons of destruction" (Canadian Medical Association Journal), "Contributors to Vehicular Violence" (ASTM International), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only your sources #1 ("Viewing Vehicular Violence through a Wide Angle Lens: Contributing Factors and a Proposed Framework" , an original research article) and #4 ("Motor vehicles are weapons of destruction", a book review) can be used to justify the general subject of "Vehicular Violence", rather than the "Vehicular Violence" specifically for US. #2 is a legal paper with proposals about traffic violations, #3 is about vehicle-ramming attacks, #5 is actually about traffic accidents despite to the heading. This is not nearly enough to justify this page. There are sources with just a combination of words "Vehicular violence", but one should check what these sources are actually about. My very best wishes (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Interesting topic and provides useful information, I suggest some more work on the article. Alex-h (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Did none of these keep!votes even read my rationale? The examples of so-called "vehicular violence" provided in this article are either not violent at all (e.g. car accidents), utterly irrelevant to the definition brought forward (e.g. car bomb), or redundant (e.g. vehicle-ramming attack). That is the definition of WP:SYNTH. Also, there seems to be some sort of WP:POINTy anti-automobile slant to this article, what with the focus on vehicle ownership and buyback programs. Love of Corey (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I can see only one book [9] and only one article [[10] on the general topic of "vehicular violence", but even they are not really on the subject of this page, which is such violence specifically in the USA. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the lead of this page was a copyvio from here. Note that even that was not specifically about USA. My very best wishes (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For context, this was the original lede.

I would also like to clarify on what I meant by "irrelevant to the definition brought forward". The lede of the article currently defines "vehicular violence" as "situations when a motor vehicle was intentionally used as a weapon, and it may involve road rage, hit and run incidents, vehicle-ramming attacks, car bombs, and drive-by shooting." While I may understand the first three, the last two just completely surprise me. In those cases, the vehicle is only being used as a delivery mechanism for the actual weapon (bomb for car bomb and firearm for drive-by shooting). Their qualification in this definition seems to be more out of convenience than any sort of extensively documented research

As an analogy, referring to the airplanes hijacked during the September 11 attacks as weapons would be accurate, because they were rammed into their targets and caused all the damage and loss of life that we saw that day. In contrast, Metrojet Flight 9268 cannot be accurately referred to as a weapon because it was destroyed by the actual weapon, a bomb that it was carrying. While some may argue the Metrojet bombing analogy is invalid because the bombing didn't affect a populated area in addition to the plane, please note that car bombs have also been used in targeted assassinations and assassination attempts that didn't affect populated areas, e.g. Assassination of Orlando Letelier. How could incidents in which vehicles were targeted as the sites of killings, not as weapons, be considered acts of "vehicular violence", then? Love of Corey (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made it very quickly to fix a copyvio. You are more than welcome to fix anything further on the page if you wish. I was looking at this source (same as this), and it say: "In the present article, a proposed framework for viewing vehicular violence is presented with three zones of immediacy - the mediate (tangential use of the vehicle in the violent act), intermediate (where the vehicle is used to facilitate the violence), and immediate (where the vehicle is the actual weapon).". So, it does cover everything. But in the present article. There is little else on this subject. Hence "delete". My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As about the site/place of violence, that can be legit. Consider domestic violence. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that's what the source said. Even so, as you said, it's only one source laying out such criteria. I would be singing a different tune if more research articles and independent sources on this topic said the same thing, or things to that affect. Love of Corey (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear WP:SYNTH compounded with a misrepresentation of common accidents as "violence". Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Real NZ Party

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

Non-notable political party. The current sources only have one independent source that mentions it, and that is only a passing mention. I was not able to find any other independent sources that mention it. HenryCrun15 (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.

Cautious delete Never registered, doesn't look like its going to run candidates, so fails notability, and any relevant info can be included in the Outdoors and/or Public Party pages. But nomination day is 18 September, so IMHO we should wait until after then for the cull, just to be sure.--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate info has confirmed they are not running anyone, so I support deletion.--IdiotSavant (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that caution; wait till nomination day and see what happens. Schwede 66 08:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your reasoning, but the possibility of notability in the future doesn't confer notability now. Perhaps we should move this article to a draft somewhere, an move it back to the mainspace if and when it becomes a notable subject. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Moffett, the name linked to the party in the only independent reliable source provided. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to draft space~~ per HenryCrun15.-gadfium 09:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete as they are not running any candidates.-gadfium 08:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draft Not notable and unless something changes I feel is unlikely to be. So as it stands now, I'd delete~~, if someone is happy for draft space then fine with it going there as well.~~ NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT // Timothy :: talk 20:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a consensus to delete (or maybe draftify) given the comments about Sept 18, relisting to see if opinions change after that date has passed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to incorporate into David Moffett article NealeFamily (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Article does not meet WP:GNG , looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unregistered party with no candidates doesn't meet the general presumption of notability for political parties. Doesn't appear to be significant coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Boardman

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR; he’s only had one significant role in Miles. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. EverybodyEdits (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that we're on a second nomination firmer consensus (so this isn't closed as soft delete) would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough mileage for this actor. As above, WP:TOOSOON applies. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getu Commercial Center

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." WP:BEFORE showed WP:ROUTINE coverage, but not significant coverage that addressed the subject directly and in-depth or that established it meets NBUILD. // Timothy :: talk 11:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: Did you check for coverage in Amharic? I added what seems to be the mall's name in Amharic to the article, but I'm not positive. I'm not familiar with the main news sources in Ethiopia or how one would check for coverage. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming everything is true, this must be one of the biggest malls in Ethiopia. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The only indication of its significance I could find was an article stating that it is "one of the five prime properties in Addis Abeba" (ProQuest ID 1446725835) and another article in Addis Fortune (ProQuest ID 2330256435) stating that it was sold for ETB 210,000,000 in 2013, which is about USD 5.8 million today. That's a fair amount of money, indicating its size and importance, but in the absence of more coverage I'm not seeing a great argument to keep. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the vagueness of comments and the fact that there has only been one additional !vote, and a weak delete at that, a relist for further discussion is apt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kumar Pandey

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

The sources seem to me a PR material, and nothing such which may count towards GNG. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Delete: I did a reference check, and third-party sources provided [11][12][13] are partnered content (paid spam article). Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the references look like press release, but some don't. Even the ones that look like partnered content may not be, because it doesn't have some of the PR type formatting. I added more web references from the google news to the article and rectified the partnered content. This personality could be significant in Patna as he is nominated for SAARC Awards which count towards GNG.[14] reljohnn (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)(— realjohnn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. )[reply]

@Realjohnn:, Did you read WP:GNG? A single award nomination has nothing to do with GNG. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AaqibAnjum:, yes i read WP:GNG and did a research on this. He got ‘Startup of the Year in Influencer Marketing' award [15] and nominated for SAARC Awards[16]. Also, i can see he formed bihar's first influencer marketing agency [17] which may count towards WP:GNG.There is also an IMDb page of him stating he worked for Khajoor Pe Atke movie. [18]- reljohnn (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Realjohnn, Well, IMDB makes no sense, it could've been helpful if there was a case of WP:NACTOR, but the subject fails NACTOR from toe to head. Coming to SAARC award nomination, it is a too soon case. Bihar's first influencer marketing agency and it has just WP:ROUTINE coverage - nothing in well, reliable and reupted sources. No pass of WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 09:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: I have improved the article with reliable references and information. - (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC) striking suspected sock vote Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete right away. Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. -Hatchens (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep Qualify WP:GNG to a certain extent but a bit lack in WP:SIGCOV. -Patrickmee (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC) strike sock vote -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrickmee, and you failed to see that WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV have same target. A subject failing SIGCOV (significant coverage) fails GNG right at the moment. Don't play hocus-pocus. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found few reliable references such as Navbharat Times [19] I believe the article does meet the general notability guideline - only businessmen of a certain reputation and stature would be nominated for SAARC awards.-ThePediaGeek (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)strike sock vote -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : All the references are spam because there is no editor name mentioned. All of it says "Partnered Content". Fails WP:GNG. The keep votes are from the socks, I have already reported them for SPI. This needs to be deleted. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 13:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusMEOW: I’m sorry if you think my account is a ‘sock’. I’m very surprised to see your response. Coming to the article, what i have shared is the ‘NAVBHARAT TIMES’ article with an editor name as ‘Ankit Ojha’ . I didn’t saw any partnered content as of now. ThePediaGeek (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC) strike sock -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cross-wiki spam and promotion. --IWI (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to qualify WP:GNG and all the links are from PR - Tatupiplu'^talk 14:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 01:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Blackford

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH as a collegiate wrestler. His unfortunate death as a passenger in an automobile accident (afternoon, speeding)[20] fails WP:VICTIM. Article has been tagged for 10 years. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very notable wrestler in life and notable in death. Death was covered by ESPN here and many other national news like the LA Times here, Chicago Tribune here. He was a 3 time NCAA Division 1 All American. 2000 Pac-10 Wrestler of the Year, Two-time Pac-10 Champion (2000, 2001) here He has a wrestling tournament named after him here Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His death was mentioned in articles about his more-famous girlfriend who was charged with careless driving in causing his death. If she were not an Olympic medalist, his death would not have been reported like this. Notability is not inherited. MB 01:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No reliable sources given. As above, notability is not inherited. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with User: Lightburst below.Knox490 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The article asserts that he was a three-time All-American. Has anyone checked to see if that's correct? If it is correct, that would seem to establish presumptive notability under WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, verified with one of the sources above. I added two references. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this should probably be closed as keep based on the fact that this person was a 3 time all-American as Cbl62 has said. The person has a WP:NCOLLATH pass. contacting Whiteguru Knox490 MB Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with the three time All-American award meeting WP:NCOLLATH. Vote changed to Keep --Whiteguru (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' The keeps all assume being a NCAA all-American meets WP:NCOLLATH. I'm not convinced that is true. All-American in NCAA wrestling is one of the top 8 finishers in a weight class, so there are 80 All-Americans each year in wrestling. This doesn't seem like a "national award" per WP:NCOLLATH#1. #4 (Have won multiple NCAA Division I national championships as an individual in an individual sport) seems much more applicable to me, and all we know is that he apparently finished in the top 8 three times. There is no indication he was won a single championship, let alone three. Furthermore, this guideline is a presumption of notability suggesting there should be sigcov in independent RS. But no one has found any, further suggesting he is not notable. MB 02:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct and a better summary than I drafted. In recent years, there are 8 national champions and 80 All-Americans -10 weight classes with 8 AAs in each.2018. Nationally he finished 4th/165# (1999), 3rd/165# (2000), 5th/165# (2001). See pages 4/5/7. He fails the WP:NCOLLATH guideline on items 2, 3, 4, and 5. Item 1 says "national award" rather than "All-American." About 1 in 30 Div I wrestlers are AA, whereas it's about 1 in 120 for football (read NCOLLATH's football callout). Anyhow, it's a guideline. Are there sufficient RS citations prior to his high-profile death in the car of a female Olympic wrestling medalist for GNG? UW Dawgs (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable wrestler with ‘National Award’ . Although stub template should be placed. ThePediaGeek (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, - Per above, he has achieve national award, meets WP:GNG . It would be better if some more information, such as his background, life, education, is added.
Keep - article needs improvements but is within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cherish Life Queensland

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

Fails WP:N significantly. Only results in a Google Search are this article, their website and Twitter page, and statements that they've co-signed with Christian activist organisations (entirely passing mentions or quotes from statements). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Minimal article with zero references. Teraplane (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notability is based on the presence of sources. This one looks like there are more sources available based on a quick look I did. I added two of them. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Would you be able to provide any of those sources that directly deal with Cherish Life here? That Guardian article you added is the only HQRS that I've come across, and only deals with a single event; there's no sustained or ongoing notability. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsPugle:, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Surprise_Party/QVi9DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22cherish+life%22+oldest&pg=PT183&printsec=frontcover this one says it's the oldest anti-abortion lobby group in Australia. I'm suggesting it could be notable enough, but I don't feel confident to support a strong keep. Graywalls (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Eh, while I guess that it gives Cherish Life very very marginal significance, I don't think it properly covers GNG. Even just looking at that extract, Cherish Life's significance was limited to one campaign and is phrased more within the people involved than the organisation itself ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Graywalls as it is the oldest anti-abortion organization in the area.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are multiple references here and on Google Scholar. As much as I dislike the controversy surrounding these debates, its a Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru: Please see my comment about passing mentions not meeting the threshold. None of the results on the first page of your custom search or Google Scholar actually discuss Cherish Life Queensland, only give them as passing mentions (For example, this QUT event ad is listed on Google Scholar because of this: Euthanasia and assisted suicide have been the subject of much moral, religious, philosophical, legal and human rights debate in Australia. This event will explore the euthanasia debate with expert speakers including Dr David Swanton (Exit International Chapter Coordinator and Director of Ethical Rights), Professor Colleen Cartwright (Principal Director of Cartwright Consulting and Emeritus Professor at Southern Cross University), Julie Borger (President of Cherish Life Queensland), Sharon Tregoning (Vice President of Dying With Dignity Queensland), Dr Maureen Mitchell (Palliative Care Specialist at The Wesley Hospital) and The Reverend Canon Richard Tutin (General Secretary of Queensland Churches Together) etc) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote should be seen as a reference to a work; one that appears to be inherently at peer-reviewed status given that it was part of a lecture event. As such the lecture is one item towards GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monax

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

The usual plethora of PR, company announcements, mentions-in-passing when discussing blockchain or hyperledger, interviews, churnalism that relies entirely on quotations and information provided by the company. Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I checked the sources and all I could find was superficial propping up. The Reuters source doesn't even mention Monax. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no evidence that the company is notable and this just comes across as a PR piece. Dunarc (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naaka Bandi

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to make it pass WP:NFILM. Only things found were movie database sites and youtube videos. Tagged for notability for 9 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pasting a comment that I posted on a similar AfD earlier this afternoon. This page follows many other pages that I have been observing in the last few weeks (and perhaps before that as well), of Indian films from the 1950-1980s, that have been showing up for deletion. By the current rules of WP:NFILM, they all fall short of the requirements, primarily because of the lack of English language online sources of reviews for these films, resulting in an undue number of films from the 1990s. This should be a topic of discussion for one of the India Projects, to think through at an aggregate rather than discussing each of the films on a one on one basis in an AfD. I agree with the high level sentiment that Wikipedia is not IMDB. However, in the same vein, Wikipedia is not just a replication avenue other recent online sources (read as recent newspapers).Ktin (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The central principal of Wikipedia is verrifiability. Articles must be based on reliable sourcing. You are free to look for reliable sourcing in any way you choose. There are lots of articles based on reliable sourcing outside the body of recent newspapers. Each article is considered on its own merits. Wikipedia cannot live up to reliability and keep articles that lack any reliable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Johnpacklambert, I definitely see your point. I have nothing against anything that you have stated above. Let's take verifiability and reliable sourcing -- we use ~~IMDB~~ a reliable source for sourcing filmography for actors. So, that source is considered reliable to prove verifiability. When a titled film uses ~~IMDB~~ a reliable source that is agreed for filmography, I am sure its verifiability is not impacted. The point that I have here is about not being able to prove notability. (made a strike through and update in my text post the comment below. I dont want to make this an orthogonal debate rather than this AfD. Hence, this is better taken outside to a forum like the ICTF. Cheers)Ktin (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMDb is ruled non-verifiable. We should stop using it for anything, period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in the absence of any proof of notability, deletion is the only valid option Spiderone 09:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no evidence this film is notable, for being good or bad. The article itself states, "The movie was not a commercial success and was acknowledged to have done nothing to the career of the leading stars." In the absence of any sources stating otherwise, its clear this movie is not worthy of note. // Timothy :: talk 05:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shibu_Mitra#Filmography per WP:CHEAP. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There has been precious little discussion of the source material, and very many assertions of notability without supporting evidence. As such there's really no substance here that can serve as the basis for consensus, and the sources provided at the very end of the discussion have not been analyzed in any depth. So I'm closing as "no consensus", explicitly with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khalsa Aid

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH - Most of the sources are primary and/or routine and prove they exist, but not that they are notable. GSS ^💬 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability and no in-depth coverage from sources not directly connected with the subject Spiderone 11:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm now neutral as to whether it should be kept or deleted. It's a borderline case as it has plenty of coverage in the media but not all of it is in-depth. Spiderone 09:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The org has got significant news coverage in India in recent years, e.g. during 2020 Delhi riots. GD (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivashree: Please point out those sources. GSS ^💬 15:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable NGO. No in-depth coverage, fails WP:ORG. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 05:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not convinced with the three votes above. Hope something better comes up
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it satisfies WP:NGO. It's work is national and international in scale and has received multiple mentions in secondary sources. News Articles: [21] [22] [23] Books: [24] Establishing WP:Neutrality might be difficult because of the quantity of positive news articles about their charitable work, but I think there's enough to write an article. Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are all passing mention and none provide in-depth coverage as required by WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS ^💬 11:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NGO says, "These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability." Thus I am using NGO's criteria to establish notablity instead of WP:ORGDEPTH. Also, ORGDEPTH, NGO, and even WP:GNG are guidelines, not policy. I believe editors need to use their own critical thinking to establish if an article fulfils our core content policies (WP:COPO). I agree that the Khalsa Aid article is a borderline case, but I think with enough searching and evaluating of sources we can find enough information to create an article. Z1720 (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still if you are going with WP:NGO we need coverage beyond passing mentions and at present almost all the sources are passing mention and none discuss the organization directly and in details as what WP:NGO#2 require The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. GSS ^💬 15:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GNG, available citations clearly shows its notability.--Irshadpp (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out sources that satisfy WP:GNG rather than just saying per WP:GNG? GSS ^💬 11:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GNG, available citations clearly shows its notability. It is a charitable organisation that responds to the wider community in state of disaster and state of emergency. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per above just saying per WP:GNG it's better if you can also point out those sources. Thank you, GSS ^💬 11:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Plenty of reliable refereces at the article already. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We know there is plenty of reliable sources exist that mention this organization but can you provide atelas one sources that discuss "Khalsa Aid" independently? all those sources confirm they exist but not that they are notable. GSS ^💬 05:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin as I pointed out above, there is sources that has mentioned (passing mention) this organization, but there is nothing that discuss the orgonization independently as per WP:NGO or WP:ORGDEPTH and none of the keep !voters above managed to provide such sources so, this should be closed as delete, draftify or relisted for another week. Thank you, GSS ^💬 05:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this a third relist given the lack of specificity by keep participants, even when asked, as to how sources establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to apoligise for the delayed response to the relisting comment above. I still believe this is article is a weak keep because there are sources [25], [26] [27] that show significant coverage of their actions in a provincial, national or international setting. There are also editorials that profile Khalsa Aid's international activities [28] [29] although I would consider these less reliable due to their editorial nature. Some sources like [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] show more local coverage, and taken together with the first set of sources listed showcase the work that this organisation does. With these sources, I think we can provide a description of the organisation, fulfiling WP:ORGDEPTH. I think it's a "weak keep" (instead of "keep") because the sources do not provide much information on the history of Khalsa Aid between its founding and circa mid-2010s, so our article might focus too much on their current charitable work. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG [38] ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Lokomotiv Tashkent season

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

As per my reasoning here, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AirTags

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Citations to not provide adequate confirmation for intent to release product. Without an announcement from Apple, even with evidence to support branding and development, articles do not provide substantive evidence of what the product is and what the product does. Therefore these articles are speculative, not reliable (unlike AirPower_(charging_mat)). XVDC (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CRYSTAL is not a blanket ban on future products, in fact it specifically states Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included... The sources provided are reliable (CNET, Macworld, International Business Times, Business Insider, Tom's Hardware [is the nominator even trying to impeach these?]), and there continues to be even more reporting on this in connection with the fall 2020 product reveal cycle. Just a random example, Tom's Guide four days ago [39] or Indian Express a week ago [40] . All in all this seems to be a nom based on misunderstanding of WP:CRYSTAL. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment IBT is unreliable. Business Insider is questionable. WP:RSP. Graywalls (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC) forgot to notify @Bri: Graywalls (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It is a device that was created by a large company, and has plenty of sources. Granted, the article definitely needs work. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The key youtube video, per (Old revision of AirTags) is now I presume zX4xvkJDHVw, has been (re)-loaded and this version does not contain Airtags at the appropriate location, 1m 42s. While my personal probability assessment is Apple has been developing a product codename Airtags and let it slip in a support video showing a developmental IOS version. I am somewhat also inclined to hope the article creator, who seems not a one-off fly by night, checked the video before a take down.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the certainty seems weak. Graywalls (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 23:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm seeing recent articles such as [41].Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep nomination withdrawn.. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Kinkade

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

The sourcing for this biography is extremely poor. Not a reliable or independent source in sight, and I didn't find any through Google either. The subject is not notable if only her own website has written about her. Bishonen | tålk 15:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. The article is looking much better — others have clearly been better at finding sources than I was. Bishonen | tålk 20:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Relevant SNGs include both WP:NACTOR and WP:NAUTHOR as she began her career as an actor and then transitioned to an (apparently rather successful) career as an occult writer. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:BASIC, albeit a bit reluctantly for this arguably WP:FRINGEBLP. I see a fair amount of newspaper coverage: [42], [43] (more on ProQuest). Her books have also been reviewed in mainstream sources: [44], [45] (the latter for a Korean translation). I expect there'd be more on Newspapers.com, but I still have to wait a few months before I'm eligible for the WP library subscription … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has had some notable acting roles as the lead in the first three movies in Night of the Demons series, so comes very close to, if not passing WP:ENT. Most of RS coverage available seems to be about her being a "pet psychic." She has received SIGCOV to pass the GNG in my view. More newspaper coverage in addition to those mentioned in the AFD and already in the article. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenAgeFan1 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC) GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several sources to the article, and will be adding more. I believe the article as it stands passes both the GNG and WP:NACTOR. Nost of thsese sources could and should have been cited long ago. It is true that most of them do not show up on a basic google search. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: "A first-rate guide for those who wish to talk to animals", says the PW review. I've no need for this: I too can talk to animals! And as I confirmed just five minutes ago, I can also talk to a bottle of sesame oil. Neither the bottle nor the oil understands me any less than the animals do (zero); but hey, I can talk all I like. ¶ However, Kinkade doesn't just talk. Rather, she -- but what does she do? From the NYT: ¶ "Ms. Kinkade could be on the brink of becoming the nation's first celebrity pet communicator. She appeared in a television pilot, communing with Tammy Faye Bakker's dog." ¶ And from PW (quoting a bit more than what's currently in the article): ¶ "She has communed with horses, dogs, cats, birds [...]. [H]er book is primarily a guide to becoming an animal communicator [...]. A first-rate guide for those who wish to talk to animals, this book may not satisfy readers who primarily enjoy stories of human-animal communion." ¶ I realize that both the NYT and PW are normally regarded as reliable sources. But I find each of these particular sources confused. Their fault, or mine? If theirs, is it OK to ignore this and quote anyway? -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: You mean the apparent confusion between communication and communion? If so, perhaps the answer lies in the fact that there is no obvious personal nominalisation of "communion". "Communer", maybe? But that rings so oddly in my ears (and, I imagine, in others') that perhaps the Grey Lady & co decided to go with the less apt but also less odd-sounding "communicator". Though, now that I think of it, it's not clear whether horse-whispering and the like are meant to constitute communication or communion. Plausibly both, as perhaps this odd language reveals. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hoary: I can call spirits from the vasty deep / Why so can I or so can any man. But do they come when you do call for them." -Shakespeare, King Henry IV, Part 1 Act 3 Scene 1 Apparently Kinkade claims that the various animals respond with comprehensible emotions and images -- comprehensible to her at least. As for "commune" the Oxford Learner's Dictionary defines "commune with" as to share your emotions and feelings with someone or something without speaking; to be in close spiritual contact with someone or something and the Free Dictionary defines it as talk to, communicate with, discuss with, confer with, converse with, discourse with, parley with 'You can now commune with people from the safety of your PC. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I confess to having been ignorant of the meaning of commune: I'd thought it had something to do with Christianity, which wasn't obviously relevant; and Wiktionary, the dictionary I happened to look into, didn't suggest to me that it meant "communicate". But if the Free Dictionary suggests that the two verbs can be synonymous, then wobbling between the two seems unobjectionable, other perhaps than from stylistic considerations. Certainly if I'd just read an entire book by somebody claiming to commun(icat)e with animals, my own mind (and idiolect) would be hopelessly scrambled. -- Hoary (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Communion" or "Holy Communion" is an important sacrament in most versions of Christianity, but that is a noun, and is not used as the verb "commune". The verb forms are "take communion" and "give communion". The words "commune", "communion", and 'communicate" all have a common root, of course. I think in the cited sources "commune" is being used in more the sense give in the OLD above, "to share emotions and feelings with someone or something without speaking". Kinkade claims, it seems to share such emotions and images with animals, and thereby to communicate with them. The image in my mind is that of the Vulcan Mind Meld from Star Trek; no doubt Kinkade would find that image disrespectful. At any rate I think this explains the quoted sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Press coverage from Publishers Weekly, The New York Times and Chicago Tribune means it's a keep. I agree with Hoary about the sesame oil. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article now clearly passes NACTOR, with a major role in the three "Demons" films, and a number of smaller roles documented in sources. I think the GNG is also clearly passed, with the coverage both as an actor and as a "pet psychic". Passage of NAUTHOR might be more marginal, but there are reviews from significant sources. If that were the only claim of notability this might not pass, but it isn't. Bishonen, no one but you has favored deletion here, and the article was rather different when you nominated it. Would you care to re-asses it now, and perhaps reconsider your view? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Bishonen | tålk 20:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The outcome here is "keep and do something", likely. What exactly is to be done (leave as it is, move to different space, restructure) can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 14:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical anniversaries

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

This article is not a list of historical anniversaries, but rather is merely a duplication of Template:Months. Further, "historical anniversaries" is redundant, since an anniversary necessarily refers to something in the past. No need for this "list" to exist. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. List serves no useful purpose and simply replicates the template used in all the DOY articles. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't a list of anything. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck my recommendation because this page is linked from the main page, which I hadn't realized when this AfD started, but I'm now recommending a redirect or move because this page still isn't a list of anniversaries. Basically, consider this as a recommendation for "something other than keep". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this page is linked on the Main Page, and that seems to be the only real purpose of the page - keeping casual readers out of template space. I've got no opinion on whether that's good enough of a reason per WP:CLT OR WP:IAR to keep this "article", but the context should be considered. I also note that there has been discussion in the past (on the article talk page) to rename the page to something like Calendar of anniversaries. ansh.666 19:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps just a semantic quibble, but I'd note this isn't a "calendar of anniversaries" either, as it is merely a set of links to articles about days, each of which also include a list of notable events that occured on that day. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the other people who think this should be deleted. It's not really a list of anniversaries like it claims and I don't think renaming it to "calendar of anniversaries" would work either for the reason given by ZimZalaBim. Although, I would semantically quibble with their semantic quibble that the articles it links to aren't lists of "notable" events either. Since 99% of the articles I saw linked in the articles are just cherry picked birthday for random people etc etc. Maybe someone is notable enough for an article, but that doesn't mean everything about them including their birthday is. Which is all the more reason to delete this. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really a list, just a copy of a calendar.Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP WP:SKCRIT#6 The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page. In such cases, please wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating. If the problem is urgent, consensus should be gained at WP:ERRORS to remove the link before nominating for deletion. There should be a discussion about removing the link from the main page first. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link will be removed if this results in it being deleted won't it? So isn't this that kind of discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under that logic, it could never be deleted as it is always on the main page. That criteria is meant so that articles at DYK/ITN can't be nominated for the day(s) that they're on front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has 279,923 views in a single year. Why would so many people be coming here? Someone must find it useful. It was created on October 2001 and template:months created a few years later‎. Does perhaps the main page needs to link to an article and not a template, so it has value? Dream Focus 05:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that the current "Archive" link on the mainpage provides better context and a more usable calendar to other dates, than this list. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete viewed a lot solely because it's on front page, but it doesn't serve the purpose people would expect it to. A list of historical anniversaries should be a list and not a misplaced template. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move outside of article space to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/Calendar. This isn't really an article and doesn't belong in main space, but it does serve a reasonable navigational function for the "On this day" section of the main page. As such, I also don't think we shouldn't be overlooking SKCRIT #6 as pointed out by power quite so easily. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 11:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN. The list is obviously aiding our readers: since July 2015 the page has 1,963,310 views. Our criteria for lists include lists which provide information or navigation. We should keep a list which serves readers per our guideline. Lightburst (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the already mentioned WP:SKCRIT#6. Deleting this article will create a redlink on the main page, which we definitely don't want. If we wish to move it or reformat it, fair enough, but I don't feel this is the best forum to consider those options.--CSJJ104 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty routine that deleting articles creates red links and it's something that is pretty easily dealt with. So, that seems like an extremely weak, nonsensical reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that a redlink is easily fixable. The existing archive link already provides a lot better context than a misleading link to "historical anniversaries" which actually doesn't link to a page with anniversaries. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is more that the redlink would then need to be removed or changed, but I do not feel that this should happen without a discussion of the options. There must be a reason why a link was provided from the main page to begin with, and there might still be a desire in the community to maintain this in one form or another. My second concern would be that the Template:SelAnnivFooter is protected, and we would need to ensure there was an administrator ready to make this change, complicating the fix of the link in this instance.--CSJJ104 (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no "historical anniversaries" listed. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page has history going back two decades; if it is decided the page should be removed can this history at least be kept? I aree with Deacon Vorbis's move proposal. Nixinova T C 07:44, 15 September 2020
Keep and convert to a list of lists page, possibly revert it back to the 21:00, 24 October 2006 version, and if necessary cleanup and rename it. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates allows for the co-existence of both list pages and navigation templates. At the time, there was no list of lists main article for Category:Days of the year. One of the issues we have is that Template:Months and all other navigation boxes are disabled on Mobile version of Wikipedia, so it would be nice if mobile users would have some accessible page too of all these day pages. Something like this. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have altered the page since this AFD began.[46] I have removed {{months}} and added a table similar to what the page was back in 2006.[47] The page could now be easily repurposed and moved to something like List of anniversaries or List of days of the year. Again, we should keep the page history on grounds of WP:CLN, which allows a category, a list page, and a navigation template that present the same content and links to co-exist. Navigation boxes like {{months}} cannot be used on the mobile versions of Wikipedia, and category pages like Category:Days of the year cannot display the links in a single table. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or repurpose to List of anniversaries. There's all notable anniversaries are historical. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's linked to/from the Main Page, so the discussion should be held there and on other wide(r) community area talk pages before coming to AfD. I can see why a debate has to be had, and also why AfD is perhaps too narrow. There is an important article and resource here and deletion seems too strong (for now). doktorb _words^deeds 22:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a useful navigation page for a topic which is way too big for one page, furthermore the naming issue is an easy fix: just move the page to a better name, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. --Jayron 32 15:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several above, including Lightburst. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Malti

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [express] || 04:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bowers

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

Until he plays in a regular season game, doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He played on a top college football team in Penn State where he received a significant amount of attention. He's currently on the Las Vegas Raiders roster as a member of the practice squad, so he is part of an NFL team. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per long-established precedent, NFL practice squad doesn't. If you want to keep this, you need to show that he received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources so as to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His college and high school career has received quite a significant amount of attention from Onward State, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Patriot News, SB Nation and ESPN. He has also been mentioned in Fox Sports and the Washington Post. See [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennsylvania2 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage cited above does not satisfy WP:GNG. The ESPN bits (#6 and #7) are just video clips from games. The Washington Post bit (#5) is a link to a stat database. One of the other bits is a recruiting interview (#2), another is a blog piece covering his commitment (#4), and another (#1) is from Onward State which is not independent (it's the Penn State student newspaper). To pass GNG, we need to see in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. I'm also dubious about WP:IMPACT with respect to a second-string tight end who only appeared in six games (two as a starter?) during four years at Penn State. See stats here. Cbl62 (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Eddy, you may be right, but this one seems pretty weak in terms of WP:IMPACT. Reviewing the sources you cited: #8 - don't know what PGH Sports is but the article confirms he was a second-stringer his whole time at Penn State, #9 qualifies as sigcov; #10 qualifies as sigcov. #11 can't gauge depth as it requires subscription; #12 appears to be a fan blog. Cbl62 (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I would probably have voted delete if he wasn't signed by the Raiders. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But being signed by the Raiders does not pass WP:GRIDIRON.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment not ready to declare a stance either way, but my first reactions look good. Need to evaluate the sources themselves--the content of the sources do point toward passing WP:GNG--my question is: are they legit third party independent news sources, or are they fan-type blog sites? We can take a few days to research that, it's worth it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If I had to choose on this, I'd have to go with Delete at this point. I wouldn't object to any enthusiastic user wanting to userfy. it's borderline to me, but I'm just not conviced the sources cited are what we're looking for.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JaMycal Hasty

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

Meets neither WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep Here's a Dallas Morning News article that explores the WP:IMPACT of this player's absence after graduation from Baylor. While not playing in the NFL is one measure, I'm finding a good amount of coverage from his college career to surpass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the source above, I was able to dig up [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I created this article as a draft, but never moved it to the mainspace as I couldn't find enough in-depth and non-routine coverage to establish notability. It should probably be moved back to draft for now, it's rare for a team to not have to call up running backs from the practice squad so passing NGRIDIRON is likely a matter of time. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Snake Moan (band)

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

There a very few sources on the internet to indicate notability of the band per WP:BAND; I couldn't find much except for a few streaming links and a few social media posts. Two archived web sources in the article also appear to be local music webzines; it is possible that they don't satisfy WP:RS. It seems that the article was written by the band as well. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It "seems like" it was written by the band? It WAS written by the band! The article was created back in 2007 by a SPA whose username matches the band's. Anyways, I haven't found anything reliable, just the stuff the nominator said. Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad writing and strange formatting that makes the page look like it was copied? Check. Conflict of interest? Check. Lack of sources? Check. Myspace link? Check. The lack of recent edits suggest this band may no longer even exist. Overall an example of the kind of articles that should be dragged here and deleted. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 03:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 Hereford United F.C. season

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

Clear WP:NSEASONS failure and has been tagged as a concern for almost 11 years. Unless evidence comes forward that this meets WP:GNG without doubt, deletion is the only option. Spiderone 15:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 19:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Hereford United F.C. season

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS; nothing remarkable about this season Spiderone 14:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 19:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. So, I see no reason to keep it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. However, I will be looking into the pattern of editing that went into the creation of this article. BD2412 T 01:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa B.

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

Sources available seem to be promotional, and not in compliance with GNG. Tried BEFORE but couldn't find anything. Comments please. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The creator of the page left the following comment on the talk for this AfD. @Itgemgirl1: generally, if you have a comment on an ongoing articles for deletion (AfD) discussion, it goes on the main page for the AfD, not on the talk. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, recently my article on Melissa B. who is a popular artist in America who has records, been in tv shows and has a book got rejected. I have been working on this with alot of research and using trustworthy sources and the search engines. Please guide me on what needs to be done as I have seen several other pages that had same sources of what I used. You can't just mark a page for deletion without looking at all the research that was put into this. So please point out exactly what needs to be fixed in order for this page to be worked on. Itgemgirl1 (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (reluctantly) - This is a close call because the singer has some notice in the industry, but I don't think it adds up to enough notability in her own right. Most of the easily-found sources appear to be promotional reprints of press releases, often with adjectives like "inspirational" that are unlikely to be used by impartial journalists. She has been mentioned occasionally in stories about other things (e.g the Google Glass reference), and she won a Hollywood Music in Media Award but that fact is only mentioned on the organization's own website. Her non-profit group "Girl Geek Dinners NYC" also has no reliable media notice. Back around 2016 she got a few media mentions as a singer to watch, but little has happened since then. Searching is tough because "Melissa B." leads to a lot of other people with the same first name and middle initial, while her birth name "Melissa Walton" and another stage name "Melissa Bailey" don't lead to much specificity either. This is a very long vote because I really spent a lot of time trying to come up with some good sources for this singer, but all I found were fragmented tidbits that just don't add up. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to ask for * Userfying: Request that the page be transferred into my userspace, where I can take my time to make necessary changes, or transfer parts to one or more other articles. This way I can make sure that this article is looked over with other eyes before submitting it again. I also would like to get another admin to look at this as well as I know for sure the amount of research I have done on this subject is pretty well done and I am finding more valid cited sources that is based on the most approved sources. Itgemgirl1 (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Userfy if Too Soon. Indications of the music career, IT work, and the non-profit, make me think this person has some notability, at least, and am attempting to beef-up the article. Just need some time. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 03:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything on her at all. Perhaps its the name changes, but I can't see a single mention. Nothing on social media. 4k subscribers on Youtube. scope_creep^Talk 11:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is alot of information that took time to find about this artist. There are alot of great cited sources we have been finding. It takes time to dig and find information in order to piece it together but this subject does have and we have proven it. Just randomly doing small searches is not enough that why it's called research. User:GenQuest what do you think? Itgemgirl1 (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Itgemgirl1: Who is the "we" you refer to? Bishonen | tålk 18:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: "WE" means the community here on Wikipedia. Thats what I mean. itgemgirl1 | tålk
Comment. I have been doing a little more research on her technology side with the Girl Geek Dinners. Did a search and found these to help beef up the article a little more. These links can help with alot more. Did a Search as " Melissa B. girl geek" and a few of these came up. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itgemgirl1 (talk • contribs)

References

^ "The Monitor" (PDF). IEEE.org. Retrieved 15 September 2020.
^ "Introducing Melissa B". Divine Magazine. 2015-08-18. Retrieved 2020-09-15.
^ "Live the Dream Tour - Advisory Board". www.livethedreamtour.org. Retrieved 2020-09-15.
^ O'Connor, Daniel (2014-02-28). "FabMe Jewelry's fashion shoot with Melissa B". TCT Magazine. Retrieved 2020-09-15.
^ "Digitally Independent". prezi.com. Retrieved 2020-09-15.
^ "iTunesCharts.net: 'Back and Forth' by Melissa B (French Songs iTunes Chart)". www.itunescharts.net. Retrieved 2020-09-15.

Draftify or userfy as the article's creator requested above. Largoplazo (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or userfyas requested, for future improvement when possible, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Mount Pleasant Football Academy season

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

All fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sathish Raja

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

Earlier today CSDed by ShohagS and deleted A7 by HickoryOughtShirt?4. Non notable as politician and fails GNG. Comments please. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Neither a single news nor website includes that name let alone article. Google search only shows some social media results not even having this person. I don't find a reason for discussing it here. The user is absolutely new and I don't think that he is going to reply here as never replied in his own talk page. It's better to close this and provide the user some guide with friendly mind. I believe that's going to work better than discussing here. ~ A. Shohag (ping_me||Talk) 14:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Hi A. Shohag, Sorry for the late reply, He is a known Politician in Kanyakumari District, TamilNadu, India. I am trying to gather the newspaper links and add more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkrishnamani (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mkrishnamani: It's very unfortunate for you that the article had speedily deleted because there was not even once reference you provided. If you believe It can be cited perfectly please do so. Or else you can understand the consequence. And thanks for replying.
- I noticed that you provided some references from your own language which seems to be some paper cutting photograph of local newspapers. You better write an article in own language because it will fail WP:GNG here. Why don't you write it in tamil wiki first? 03:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't have a rule that our sources have to be in English. They have to be reliable, they have to be substantive, and they have to pass various context and range and volume tests — but we don't care what language they're written in, so long as somebody around here has the ability to translate them if needed. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a political party apparitchik is not, in and of itself, an "inherently" notable role — getting guaranteed inclusion in Wikipedia requires him to hold office in a legislature, not just in a political party's internal org chart, and people aren't exempted from that just because the page creator throws the word "well-known" around without evidence to support it. The article is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to suggest that he would clear WP:GNG for this. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per bearcat's well articulated explanation of why people at this level are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SocialCred

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

promotional non-notable app with very little sustained independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If this is promotional, I urge senior editors to clean up promotional contents in the article just as an Admin has done on the page. There are more sources in two print newspapers and I'm learning how to cite them on the page. Asema1957(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not supposed to be for clean up purposes. Trillfendi (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am finding SIGCOV of the app, with much non-trivial coverage like this. and this and this. There is not a guideline which calls for "sustained" coverage in relation to a product. Lightburst (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons cited by User:Lightburst 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt (~~with no prejudice against draftification and requiring WP:AFC in case this really takes off, but that's doubtful~~). The WP:THREE sources listed above are glorified press releases. The existing sources in the article really aren't any better. One of them was written by a member of the company too. The first paragraph of the first source (from The Sun) reads:
The Lagos-based startup, which celebrated its third year anniversary earlier in May is reputed for providing brands and individuals with the people, products and platforms they need to effectively connect with their target audience.
Holy PR-speak, Batman! – that disqualifies it from establishing notability on its face. Everything here is the result of a media blitz by the company and doesn't establish notability. Wikipedia is not a PR mouthpiece. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deacon Vorbis. We've no reason to reward a PR blitz. XOR'easter (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Meh, WP:SALT is a rather odd suggestion for a new article which has not ever been recreated. And the word "glorified" is a rather odd adjective to use as well. A simple WP:BEFORE shows much more non-trivial independent RS, like Business Day 1, Techeconomy 2, Vanguard 3. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Salting is more than called for here. This article was, beyond a reasonable doubt, the result of WP:UPE. Your Business Day source is identical to the Neusroom source already in the article here, even though the two are ostensibly by different, staff writers. Oops, somebody done screwed up at the PR firm!

Moreover, the company in question, Plaqad was already deleted more than once, the creator blocked for socking, see also their effort at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia.com.ng, and note the not-at-all-surprising overlap in sources at that AfD and here. I've opened an SPI on the current article creator (alleging a link to the original account). This may or may not give anything conclusive, but it's worth keeping an eye on.

In any case, it's fair to conclude that the bulk of the sources provided were paid for, and are thus not independent of the article subject, and thus do nothing to establish notability. Unfortunately, I think you picked the wrong article to try to rescue this time. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is the right article-I already did some minor work to the article. You can make a point by calling out press release type sources, but not the independent ones. And pointing to other deleted articles which are not this article is not an impressive tactic. The app gets much coverage in Nigeria and Africa and has understandable PR. This is only a 2 month old app so some regurgitation is understandable. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does this https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/08/socialcred-shows-why-micro-influencers-might-be-getting-more-nods-over-mega-influencers/ not count as legitimate coverage? What about the other sources mentioned already? Dream Focus 21:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. From Vanguard's advertising page:
Sponsored Post
The cost sponsored article is one hundred thousand Naira (N100,000.00) Please note that articles to be published as sponsored post must be submitted for verification and approval before payments are made.
Given the promotional nature of this piece and the host of other promotional stories all appearing, and the history surrounding previous related articles and account, it's pretty safe to say that everything here is the result of paid PR. None of this demonstrates notability. (For reference, that's about 250.33 US dollars). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: the editor is incorrect about most of the sources. The LA Times and NY Times are not the standard for this type ofNigerian app. We have several solid sources: DV has been disruptive and hostile as of late. This is a two month old app. I am unsure why the need for this tendentious editing... contesting every piece of information. Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like lots of PR for this very new company in a sector where every new company can drum up PR-based coverage in low quality sources. Not seeing anything approaching WP:CORPDEPTH here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Rhododendrites and XOReaster. This is a promotional brochure. Any company can drum up the usual marketing churn and press releases, but this is an encyclopedia and not a database of advertisements. Reyk _YO! 08:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional and fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, anything promotional should be removed. However, with sources indicated by Lightburst along with some analysis, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue isn't primarily about cleanup or promotion but rather the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Not a single one of the references meets the criteria. Invariably, they're announcements (or based on announcements) and other PR. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Honestly this is really just a promotional article for a non notable app created by an editor with a conflict of interest. Celestina007 (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlap-Stone University

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Per WP:NSCHOOL, for profit colleges are not inherently notable. No SIGCOV for subject Rogermx (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 17:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Graywalls (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets #2 of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There are additional mentions in Google news such as Washington Post and Phoenix News Times. These references have been now added. Expertwikiguy (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC explaining why you should not use Schooloutcomes as an argument. The Banner talk 19:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [babble] || 04:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atour Sargon

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

Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NPOL.John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't really see any reason why the page should be deleted. The article as is currently uses 13 reliable sources, 12 of which (as far as I can tell) are secondary. This is more than the amount of sources used to create some stub-class articles that are still allowed to stay up on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, another user removed the stub tags that were previously on the page due to the larger amount of secondary sources used (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atour_Sargon&diff=974200341&oldid=974163585), but if this is still too few, I am happy to re-add the stub tags as an alternative to deletion. I am also willing to add a disclaimer at the top, such as the article needing additional citations for verification, etc, as an alternative to deletion.

As far as notabiliy goes, the amount of sources used should be enough to confirm a level of notability, but if they aren't, I am happy to add more since there are a lot more online. Also, because she is the first person to hold the specific position that she currently holds (as per all of the sources), I think it's worth keeping. In the very least, it should be kept for that reason and maybe have a disclaimer at the top, such as "more citations needed," etc.

Lastly, aside from the nomination for deletion, no reason has been provided on the talk page for why it should be deleted in the first place, so it's not really even clear which one of Wikipedia's reasons for deleting an article that this article would fall under. But I think the reasons I provided and the alternatives that I suggested show that this article can still be kept while maybe putting some dislciamers at the heading of the page that address whatever issues with the article we might have.

Ninos2576 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - also wanted to respond to the reasons for deletion - I feel like the "notable for one event" option doesn't really apply since there's a separate section titled "Assyrian activism" that shows activism that she's done unrelated to the position (AMPAC, Vote Assyrian board member, Census project, guest speaking, and giving lectures with senators). On the second point, fact that she's a local politician isn't necessarily a reason to delete as the situation has received press attention and it isn't the only thing she is known for, as previously mentioned.

Thank you for listening

Ninos2576 (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I would also like to add my thoughts on the two reasons for the article's proposed deletion, since I don't believe I addressed them before. This is meant to be a comment under my "keep" vote. Apologies if I did not format it as such.

The first one, (Fails WP:BLP1E) states that she is notable for only one event. This isn't true since, as mentioned in the article, she is known for being the first Assyrian elected to the Lincolnwood board, being a board member of Vote Assyrian, being an advisor for the American Middle East Voters Alliance PAC, encouraing Assyrians in the US to fill out the census through Vote Assyrian's national Census Project, addressing the public with a Senator about civic engagement among Assyrians, being the co-chair of Schakowsky's Annual Ultimate Women's Power gathering (which included guests like Lori Lightfoot and Jill Biden, founding the Assyrian Chaldean Syriac Student Movement, being a guest speaker at several public events pertaining to Assyrians, and so on.

The second proposed reason (WP:NPOL) states that the article should be deleted because she is a local politician who does not recevie much media attention. I believe this doesn't apply for a few reasons.

Firstly, It assumes that the article ONLY claims that she's notable for being a local politician, which isn't true. There's an entire section labeled Assyrian activism that shows reasons she is notable aside from her position (a lot of those reasons are mentioned above in my first point). All of the information in this section is sourced with reliable sources that are all both secondary and independent. The two Youtube videos used as sources are "Civic Engagement in the Assyrian Community" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVEKAqZbjD0&t=3m05s) and the Assyrian Student Association of Chicago's 2020 Graduation Ceremony (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eku_2Qw4pgc&t=53m27s). These are both reliable sources in this case because they are both interviews/speeches from Sargon, and the only information being claimed from them is that Sargon gave an interview/speech about a specific topic. The article only refers to the 2020 graduation video by saying "Sargon was a guest speaker at the Assyrian Student Association of Chicago's class of 2020 virtual graduation ceremony" which the video obviously can reliably prove. The claim that the article makes about the civic engagement video is that "In September 2019, Sargon, along with Senator Ram Villivalam and representatives from Vote Assyrian, addressed the public about the importance of civic engagement among the Assyrian American Community" which the video also obviously can reliably prove. None of the information that is said within the videos is cited, just the fact that the videos were taken, as well as information that Sargon provides about her personal life in the video.

Secondly, if you look at the WP:NPOL, you'll see that it says, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." This means that Sargon can still have a page as a local politician if she meets the general notability guidelines. One of the requirements listed in the page is "Significant coverage." Sargon's wikipedia page proves that she has received significant coverage. She is the sole subject of the article "Atour Sargon, longtime Lincolnwood resident, runs on ticket of transparency, diversity" (https://theassyrianjournal.com/atour-sargon-longtime-lincolnwood-resident-runs-on-ticket-of-transparency-diversity/), and has a significant mention (including even being quoted) in the following articles: (http://nadignewspapers.com/2019/05/22/lincolnwood-trustees-sworn-in-at-meeting/) (https://theassyrianjournal.com/after-decades-of-underrepresentation-assyrians-find-their-place-in-the-polls/) (https://borderlessmag.org/2020/05/06/hard-to-count-assyrian-community-prepares-for-the-census-amid-covid-19/) (https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lincolnwood/ct-lwr-lincolnwood-election-tl-0411-story.html) (https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lincolnwood/ct-lwr-early-lincolnwood-results-tl-0404-story.html) (http://www.janschakowsky.org/blog/watch-19th-annual-ultimate-womens-power-lunch).

And, as required by the notability guidelines page, all of these sources are secondary and independent. They meet the qualification for secondary sources because, as per the Wikipedia:No original research page, under the "primary, secondary, and tertiary sources" header, the sources are all not produced by Sargon herself. They are independent sources too, since they are all produced by organizations that have no relation as per the Wikipedia:Independent sources page under the people category. They are not the person (Sargon), family members (anyone related to Sargon), friends (none of Sargon's friends), employer (no one who employs Sargon), or employees (no one employed by Sargon). The sources come from Jan Schakowsky's website (who is a congresswoman unrelated to Sargon in any of the previously mentioned ways), Borderless Magazine, the Chicago Tribune, Nadig Newspapers, the Assyrian Journal, Medill News Service, and some others. There is one primary source from the Village of Lincolnwood, who is Sargon's employer, but that's it (from what I see).

The only other grievance I believe I saw was that the sources are local and/or barely mention Sargon. My mention of the sources above shows why they do mention Sargon in depth. As for the point about them being local, this isn't true as well. After looking on the websites of the Assyrian Journal (https://dc.medill.northwestern.edu/#sthash.gtQV7Z1l.dpbs), Borderless Magazine (https://borderlessmag.org/), the Assyrian Journal (https://theassyrianjournal.com/), I see that they all cover a wide variety of significant national issues, not just local ones.

Because of all the reasons outlined above, I believe the page should exist in some capacity. I have addressed every argument on the contrary using wikipedia's own community guidelines. In the very least, it justifies having the page exist but using some of the alternatives to deletion mentioned by Wikipedia, such as having tags like cleanup, stub, refimprove, or the one that says that this biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. I feel as if though keeping the page but adding some of these tags as dislcaimers at the top is a good reason to keep it, since the stuff I addressed above shows why the page should exist in some capacity.

I believe this reply has addressed every grievance and reason as to why the article was proposed to be deleted, and show why it should exist in some capacity. Thank you again for listening to my suggestions

Ninos2576 (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youtube is not a reliable source. Most of these sources have extremely passing mention of Sargon or are extremely local. Any elected official is going to get some level of coverage, but we have intentionally decided most elected officials are not notable if they have held only local positions. The passing mentions from other contexts do not add up to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for the suggestion. But the Yotube sources in question are interviews/speeches by Sargon made and uploaded by third parties who are independent of her, meaning that they are secondary sources. And they are reliable because the only information being claimed through them is the fact that Sargon was giving speeches/interviews at certain times, and not citing any of the info that she claimed in those speeches/interviews. Since a lot of sources mention her and several in the article have her as the sole subject of them, perhaps one of the alternatives to deletion can be adding tags at the top of the page, such as stub tags or tags that critique some of the the sources used in the article? Just a possible alternative suggestion.

I also wanted to point out that there is an entire section titled "Assyrian activism" which points out other reasons unrelated to her local office position to show why she's notable. This means that the past standard for deletion probably doesn't apply because she's notable for reasons unrelated to the office (Vote Assyrian board member, AMVotePac board member, census campaigning, meeting with prominent politicians such as Schakowsky, Lori Lightfoot, and Ram Villivalam to discuss Assyrian issues, campaigning on behalf of these individuals, etc)

Thanks again.

Ninos2576 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Atour seems to fall under the "general notability" listing as she has received regular significant coverage as a political leader of a minority community from reliable sources independent of the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbjoe15 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPOL for political career, but I also don't see notability for activism career. All but one of the sources for activism are connected to her or another political candidate in some way and aren't RS. The one potential RS (Borderless magazine) I see is quotes her about the census and has only like about her. I also don't see any GNG fulfilling sources, as the user above claims. Side note: there's possibly an offwiki attempt to brigade this, I'm sure any closer will be able to see. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't see why any of the sources in the activism section wouldn't apply. They are all either speeches with her in which she personally confirms information (all uploaded by people/groups who are unaffiliated with her), things uploaded by other parties' websites (such as Jan Schakowsky's website and the AMVOTEPAC Website), articles posted by news organizations (Borderless Magazine, Medill News, Nadig News, Assyrian Journal, etc). Some of them have extensive involvement/mention of her while others are less, but I think that proves that the page should exist in some capacity, at least with a stub tag or one of the tags that I mentioned before in my previous comment to notify readers that the article may have some weaknesses ("this biography of a living person needs additional cirations," etc.

Thank you. Ninos2576 (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like some additional commentary from other editors to if this subject meets NPOL
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. It's not the best case, but the subject is covered in multiple outlets, at least one of which has an international scope. BLP1E doesn't apply here.--User:Namiba 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would just like to point out since my last comment that the politics section of the article has grown substantially since it was last discussed on this board (see these diffs and note that the date/time difference is after the above comments and votes were posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atour_Sargon&diff=978994669&oldid=978372856 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atour_Sargon&diff=978997332&oldid=978996281). It grew to the point where it needed to be split into two sub-sections (“election” and “as trustee.” Furthermore, the politics section now cites a total of about 15 sources, including ones as prominent as the Chicago Tribune, and provides a much more detailed account of the political career. I think this shows that the article definitely should exist in some form as per WP:GNG. (maybe even as a stub or with a maintenance tag such as the ones in Template:BLP sources). Furthermore, I think WP:NPOL has been met as well. However, I just wanted to reiterate that the political career is not the only reason that the article cites her as being notable for, so WP:NPOL doesn’t necessarily apply, even though it has now been met by the substantial (and sourced) expansion of the political career section over the past few days. It also proves WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here. Thank you. Ninos2576 (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's still no meeting of NPOL here. Every single reference is about her successful run for an utterly and completely insignificant office. The only sources that aren't local do not come within a driver's shot of meeting our reliable sources policy. And I'm sorry, but it's utterly ridiculous to hinge the achievement of such an insignificant office on the fact that she's the first of a certain nationality. She's an American, and per WP:INHERIT, facts about her parents are not relative to her notability. John from Idegon (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I've said before, this "not meeting WP:NPOL" argument assumes that the only reason she's notable is for the position. She's not. there's an entire Assyrian activism section that shows her notability in ways that are completely divorced from the political position. this includes being a on an executive of two Middle Eastern nonprofit organizations, being a representative of the of the Assyrian community at a meeting with Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Mayor of Chicago Lori Lightfoot, and Second Lady of the United States Jill Biden, being involved with the Vote Assyrian's census project, and being a guest speaker at several large Assyrian public events. This, AFTER BEING COMBINED with the political career, is more than enough to establish notability as per WP:GNG, which was mentioned by several other users on this discussion. Her position is not the only thing that establishes notability, as evidenced by the sources that make no mention or little mention of her position but still mention notable activism that she's done. Either way, the article still meets WP:NPOL considering the fact that the section now cites 15 reliable sources, including ones with a national scope such as the Chicago Tribune AND including sources where she's the sole subject or a significant subject of the source (The Assyrian Journal sources, the public speech sources, and the meeting with Schakowsky/Lightfoot/Biden source). This is a lot more than what can be said for many other stub-class biography articles on Wikipedia which are able to exist without question. This is a lot of coverage considering the fact that it's apparently an "insignificant position." The WP:INHERIT thing doesn't apply because Assyrian is an ethnicity, not a nationality, as per every single source on the Assyrian people Wikipedia page, as well as the common knolwedge that there is no modern country called Assyria for her or her parents to be from or be a citizen of. There hasn't been one for thousands of years, so it isn't her nationality, nor her parents'. It's an ethnicity. So her accomplishments as an ethnic Assyrian activist should still be noted since those would be true whether or not she is an American by nationality. I am also happy to re-add the stub tags that other users removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atour_Sargon&diff=974200341&oldid=974163585) if that's a way to remedy this. I feel like that's a good solution considering the fact that the article is just as, if not more content-heavy and source-heavy than many stub-class biography articles on Wikipedia. The sheer size and amount of sources in the article show that it should exist in some form at per WP:GNG, so perhaps a stub tag is the way to do that. All in all, the subject of the article is discussed by many reliable/secondary sources for several different reasons, including sources with a national scope and ones where she is the sole subject or a significant subject of the source. Even if it's an "insignificant position," the amount of coverage she gets, both for reasons related and unrelated to the position, prove it should exist as per WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article has more content and sources than many stub articles that are allowed to exist on Wikipedia. For all these reasons, the article most certainly meets notability guidelines as per numerous Wikipedia policies, including WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, WP:BLP1E. Thank you for listening. Ninos2576 (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ninos2576:, you should stop trying to bludgeon the discussion. Whether a subject meets NPOL or not has literally nothing to do with the number of sources. She fails NPOL because she doesn't hold a national or state level position and hasn't received 'significant coverage. Coverage relating to politics amounts to trivial mentions in coverage of Lincolnwood local elections. After looking at the sources, it's pretty clear she doesn't meet GNG, not for politics, and not for activism. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am sorry, but I don't know what is meant by bludgeon in this instance. I feel as if though the article meets notability guidlines as per several Wikipedia policies (see my previous comment), so I mentioned all of the reasons and responded to other people's concerns about this. At this point, it's becoming repition on both sides, as I have mentioned before that it isn't just the quantity of sources but rather the quality (see the Chicago Tribune point), the fact that she's at the center of many of them (the interviews/speeches, The Assyrian Journal articles, and the meetings with Schakowsky/Lightfoot/Biden point), and the fact that her political career, even if "insighnificant," deserves a spot on Wikipedia due to its combonation with her other accomplishments, for which there has been a lot of coverage relative to other stub articles on Wikipedia. My proposal to make this a stub article has never been responded to either, so I feel as if though that's the best solution because it allows the article to exist as per the fact that it meets WP:GNG while still acknolwedging that there is a lot of work to be done. My reasons for why it meets WP:NPOL are above too. Thank you. Ninos2576 (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- TryKid is referring to WP:BLUDGEON. Also, please thread your comments properly as per WP:Talk page guidelines#Layout. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to McMaster Faculty of Engineering. Tone 14:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Ring Clock

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

Delete. This article was discussed for deletion and no consensus was reached in 2006. Notability is a huge issue. Besides an article in a local newspaper, the clock does not seem to be significant to need its own page. Besides it being a successful student project, there is no other notable thing about the clock and all citations are not from multiple, external sources. It is a tribute to the iron ring but does not deserve its own page, much like most other tributes and statues. User:R.schneider101 02:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to McMaster Faculty of Engineering. Mind matrix 17:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, through sadly the article has no footnotes, and the reliable but very minor sources (local news/university magazine) are just external links. So it is hard to know what to merge, maybe just a sentence or two from the lead, referenced to those sources? Unless anyone wants to spend time veryfing the minor details. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gary L Kreps

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

Appears to be mostly created by the individual concerned; only has one link to it from a list article; Google returns little in secondary sources. Resume form. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an WP:AUTOBIO problem here, some of the unsourced evaluation of his research accomplishments needs to go, and the long listing of publications is indiscriminate, but it can all be dealt with by cleanup. Article appears to easily pass both WP:PROF#C1 (heavy citations on Google Scholar [65]) and #C5 (distinguished professor and earlier endowed chair). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:PROF. Lots of cites, plus holder of a named chair. WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went through and seriously pruned the article, cutting out the indiscriminate listing of publications, the unsourced evaluations of his accomplishments, etc. I think what's left is a reasonable stub, and as argued above, WP:PROF is passed. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to XOR'easter for trimming the article. The subject certainly passes WP:PROF on ceveral counts, including WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5, as Distingwished Professor and a holder of and Endowed Chair. The WP:AUTOBIO issue occured too long ago to matter now: the article was created (presumably by the subject) back in 2007, but it had been substantially edited by many other users since then. Nsk92 (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we do not universally enforce our rules against autobiographies they will have no teeth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Our current rule, the policy WP:AUTO, does not prohibit autobiographies, but only strongly discourages them. It does not mandate deleting autobiographies that were created in violation of the policy either, not if the subject is unquestionably notable and the other issues had been addressed. Instead, the WP:YOURSELF section of the policy says: "Anything you submit will be edited mercilessly to make it neutral." That's exactly what happened here. The article has been stubbified to just a few short paragraphs and all the fluff and promotional info have been removed. Perhaps the WP:AUTO policy as it exists today is too lenient and needs to be tightened, to give it, as you put it, more teeth. But that's a different story and a conversation that would need to be conducted in a different venue. Nsk92 (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consensus seems to be keep, so closer or someone else should probably move to Gary Kreps, as it's not taken and there's no obvious need for the "L". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Art Mikveh

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to pass WP:SINGER, as there's almost no independent coverage of him that I can find, no charting music, no awards, no major label releases, etc. Even the artist's own social media promotes only Amazon downloads and coverage in a Wikipedia mirror. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I vote delete, because this man does not appear notable. I found this article when JesusNation15 removed the deletion notice. If the way to keep this article is to hide the deletion discussion, then it is a sign it should be deleted.Maria Gemmi (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though helpful, — Maria Gemmi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to support how subject meets WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate echoing what is already said, but the reviewing admin will want more than, "yeah, they're right", or "delete per nom". I see no hope, no indication at all, of this subject meeting WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSIC-- you name it, the lack of (sing along with me) significant coverage cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking" precludes the notion of notability. (As a side note, I just blocked a SPA that removed the PROD and then the AfD notice. ALso, this page was moved out of drafts by the creator. The submission had been rejected as "about a musician or musical work not yet shown to meet notability guidelines " and as "about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines and v - Submission is improperly sourced" and again here and finally here. At no time was an improvement made to show subject is notable.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete declined three times and rejected twice at WP:AFC, no indication that this could pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually so tag, but soemone detagged. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [express] || 04:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Mulhall

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

Autobiography of semi-pro rugby league player and coach, not yet notable per WP:RLN as I can't find any confirmation in reliable sources that he played in a professional match, and no significant coverage online in reliable sources, just some mentions on sports forums. Capewearer (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Capewearer (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Capewearer (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:RLN. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been discussing notability with the article creator at my talk page, and he's uploaded some press clippings, which I've added to a gallery. One of the matches he played in was a championship match for American National Rugby League. Comments from other editors are welcome on whether that meets the intent of WP:RLN. Capewearer (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article could do with more sourcing, but subject appears to meet GNG thus far. – DarkGlow (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GrowJust India

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

Non notable magazine with no in-depth significant coverage in any reliable source. A before search links me to their social media sites, user generated sources or self published sources. I observed this but Crunchbase isn’t a reliable source. Celestina007 12:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 12:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, and fails Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 14:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy speedy delete: Blatantly promotional and No signs of WP:GNG QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the magazine. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 17:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, leaning towards keep. I do not believe that relisting is likely to yield a more definitive outcome, and certainly not likely to yield a definitive consensus to delete, so I won't waste the community's time with it. Rationales for keeping are thin but not entirely nonexistent. The opinion of a low-edit Wikipedian in English with edits in the low hundreds in another language Wikipedia is given limited weight, though more than that of a pure SPA. BD2412 T 01:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katarzyna Karpowicz

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

It had been my intention to draftily because of serious WP:GNG doubts but Draft:Katarzyna Karpowicz exists. The article needs far better sourcing and to be incubated in Draft namespace. However, I can be persuaded to reconsider if the main space article is brought up to standard and Notability is verified.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.weranda.pl/sztuka-zycia/artysci/katarzyna-karpowicz-wywiad-z-artystka	Interview with the subject	Interview with the subject	nothing outside the interview with the subject	✘ No
https://katarzynakarpowicz.pl/en/biographical-note/	Subject's own web site	Subject's own web site	~ Subject's own web site means coverage is interesting but irrelevant	✘ No
https://pieniadze.rp.pl/inwestycje/sztuka/kompas-sztuki/21935-kompas-mlodej-sztuki-2019	Critique of work and note of place in competetion (3rd)	Appears to be a news source	A single pragraph is not significant coverage	✘ No
https://www.rp.pl/Plus-Minus/304189953-Katarzyna-Karpowicz-Dyskryminacja-w-sztuce-jest-zwiazana-z-moda.html	Interview with the subject	Interview with the subject	nothing outside the interview with the subject	✘ No
"Najlepsi młodzi artyści. Kompas Młodej Sztuki 2019". Retrieved 12 września, 2020. `{{cite web}}`: Check date values in: `\|accessdate=` (help)	Highly regarded in Poland classification of young artists based on input from 80 major galleries and art critcis. 3rd place (there are 2 more articles of this type in 2018 and 2017 because she was 2nd in those years)	Published in "Rzeczpospolita". Business news source with the largest circulation in Poland (equivalent to US The Wall Street Journal)	short discussion of merits similar in length with other top placements	✔ Yes
Płachta, Katarzyna (April 19, 2019). "Katarzyna Karpowicz: Dyskryminacja w sztuce jest związana z modą (en.: Discrimination in art is related to fashions)". Rzeczpospolita (94): 20–21. (en: You occupy top places in the ranking of "Rzeczpospolita" Kompas Młodej Sztuki, collaborate with galleries in Madrid, Kraków, Wrocław, Warsaw, Gdańsk, Poznań [..]	Interview with the artist. Paragraph stating her prominence "You occupy top places in the ranking of "Rzeczpospolita" Kompas Młodej Sztuki"	Interview published in "Rzeczpospolita". Business news source with the largest circulation in Poland	Long interview in a major Polish newspaper	✔ Yes
Szczuciński, Adam (2020). "A physician's viewpoint". In Tuleya, Wojciech; Czyńska, Małgorzata (eds.). Srebrzysta. Silver (PDF). Warsaw: Galeria Art. pp. 29–33. ISBN 978-83-935322-4-7. The artist allows us -viewers - to create our own stories, guess at meanings, conjecture however we want. At times, one can discern colourful blots in the background, resembling traces of attempts at developing an image, conjuring figures out of nothingness and providing real frames to dreams. Allow me to add that these attempts are exceptionally successful `{{cite book}}`: Cite has empty unknown parameter: `\|1=` (help)	Book/Catalog from exhibition in the form of a book (with assigned ISBN). Independent critique by art critics Czyńska and Szczuciński.	Major Polish/Warsaw modern art gallery (Galeriaart) run by an art historian W. Tuleya	Two substantial articles about the artist	✔ Yes
Belling, Samanta (October–December 2012). "Katarzyna Karpowicz". Artysta i sztuka (7): 35–39. (en: It been a long time since I had such an enlightenment in contact with paintings as in contact with Katarzyna Karpowicz's art. Her works prove that there are still young artists who create, live, and their art is, above all, based on feelings and a unique atmosphere that evokes memories in almost all of us [..] Katarzyna Karpowicz seems to be out of this epoch, as if she were living beyond time, just like her paintings. By deliberately simplifying the form of her work, she leaves us room for impressions, guesses and personal interpretations.)	Review in an independent professional art publication	Yes	Long article with substantial coverage	✔ Yes
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}}.

At present the references (analysed from this permalink) are both insufficient and mainly primary sources Fiddle Faddle 11:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 11:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 11:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 11:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note A new reference has been added, to a book, https://galeriaart.pl/prints/pdf/cover_karpowicz_66.pdf I have some hopes of this reference as being independent and significant coverage (though it is very much borderline, teetering on the wrong side of the border). Two more of better quaity, will be sufficient for me to withdraw this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 18:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned, however, if all new sourcing comes form the same outlet Fiddle Faddle 19:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is now well referenced from several secondary sources with independent critics commenting on her work in the last 10 years (she is 33). She is second or third among all young painters in Poland in a prestigious "Compass of Young Artists" competition organized by Rzeczpospolita newspaper - Polish equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. Not just in the last year but several years in a row. The interviews are perhaps not the sanctified WP sources of information, but they are not used here as such. Instead, interviews, which typically occur in relation to art exhibitions, are proxy for notability. Only the most important interviews are referenced here (for example the one in Rzeczpospolita). I am native Polish speaker and these interviews contain interlocutors comments about her notability - for example stressing her commercial and artistic successes. References to her web pages (and material from them, possibly self-referencing) is now removed from the main text and moved to "External links" subsection. She has several catalogs of her work printed by several galleries, which is unusual for an artist of her age. Puncinus (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Puncinus, Thank you for your hard work. I find nothing in the references to convince me to withdraw the nomination. I see interviews and gallery catalogues, both of which are primary sources. One article about the family has a paragraph on this lady.

We need to see what others have said about her. While one might argue that being exhibited is a form of critique of her we need somewhat more than that in my view. So I have decided not to withdraw the nomination, but to allow others to judge the article and the lady's notability and verifiability. Fiddle Faddle 06:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section Katarzyna_Karpowicz#Critical_reception on what others have said about Karpowicz's work in published materials (journal articles or books). Among them pl:Stanisław Tabisz (grafik) - professor of the Academy of Fine Arts in Cracow, primary art university in Poland, pl:Małgorzata Czyńska - Polish historian of art and art critic, Wojtek Tuleya - an art curator, Adam Szczuciński - an art critic, and others including articles of Jolanta Antecka and Bronisława Słonina. Some of these essays are published inside books and journal articles. For example, these 2 books (with ISBN) are available in the Polish National Library Blue Grass or I had a dream. This one Genius Loci is available in Getty Research Institute and Metropolitan Museum of Art. It is true that these particular 3 ones are also "catalogs" from exhibitions but they contain material written by independent art critics and are acknowledged ways of establishing reputation in the art world.Puncinus (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Genuine artist. Find sources. Likely Keep scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a well known young painter and the article is well documented with many independent critics references. Katarzyna Zimek (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)— Katarzyna Zimek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. However, note that she is a wikipedian since 2015 with hundreds of edits on pl:WP[reply]
Keep. Notable artist, the critical reception is well referenced, the article has been siginificantly improved since the nomination for deletion.Filip em (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Borderline. While we seem to have some WP:SPA and even possobile WP:MINION or worse activity here, COI/miscoduct aside, the artist may be notable.She got a short paragraph summarizing her life and work in a major Polish newspaper here: [66] and two in this regional edition of another major newspaper: [67]. She comes from a painter family that got brief coverage (and she, a brief mention) in a lesser but still reliable Polish newspaper here: [68]. She seems to be balansing on WP:TOOSOON and I am unsure if she is notable yet. Possibly. Let's see what others think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I suspect it's a bit soon. While none of the artists form the Kompas listing have articles on English Wikipedia, they have in most cases received a fair amount of critical attention, and some have been quite successful, like Ewa Juszkiewicz. Artfacts.net ranks Agnieszka Polska in the top 1000 worldwide and top 10 in Poland for example. A high ranking in Kompas is a clear indication that the subject is a serious artist. Vexations (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KraneShares

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 09:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ad for a run-of-the-mill ETF offering by a non-notable investment firm. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per AleatoryPonderings. 1292simon (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article backed by routine announcement and listing references, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find more announcement-based coverage but not the reliable coverage needed for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (per WP:SNOW) ... discospinster _talk 21:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fazluraheman

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

This article was deleted and recreated several times. I am bringing it here to confirm a consensus and show the person the article needs to be notable as well as give the page creator time to find the sources necessary. NYC Guru (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this should be a speedy delete as there's really no credible claim of significance. Can't find a single mention of this subject. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. No indication of significance. No sources. Created by Fazluraheman7.--Mvqr (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least we can give them a link to this page and they'll pretty much know why the article keeps getting deleted. Clearly this is a new editor so if he/she sees this page they'll understand why it keeps getting taken down. NYC Guru (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as others have pointed out that there's no real credibility to this individual, I could not find a single thing about them online. Portughetti^talk 12:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - not an "influencer" as shown by the lack of coverage - Arjayay (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No sources or indication of significance, fails WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above all. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt, it's a G11 in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Awais

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

fails to meet basic GNG as well relevant WP:NACTOR. cited sources are not reliable enough. I don't see she has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions Saqib (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i added the sources which mentioned her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs)

Sourced are not reliable. --Saqib (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did some search on the sources, they are reliable the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs)

No, they're not. You need to consult WP:RS. --Saqib (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots and lots of passing mentions, but no real secondary sources that satisfy WP:SIRS. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. It doesn't help that sometimes her name is spelt like Natalia Awais and sometimes its Natalia Owais. Probably WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 11:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and scope creep's explaination. -Hatchens (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, plenty of passing mentions, but no significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana Armed Forces Senior High School

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

The article doesn't cite any reference, I couldn't find multiple in-depth reliable sources about it in a BEFORE, and secondary schools are not automatically notably by virtue of being schools. So, this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Plus, it was created by a single purpose account. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing showing notability. Mztourist (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adu Memorial Junior High School

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

This article only cites a single source that is a dead link and I was not able to find multiple reliable in-depth sources about it in a BEFORE. So, the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Also, it was created by a SPA user. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete junior high schools need very good sourcing to be kept which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No reason for deletion submitted. Renaming does not require deletion. Sandstein 17:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winkle Islands

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

It's actually one island, as noted in the article itself and in The Skerries, Northern Ireland. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've created Winkle Island (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a rename take care of the plural? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a Winkle Island. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a disambiguator. Call it 'Winkle Island, the Skerries' or something. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason for deletion suggested. Maybe it should be renamed to "Winkle Island, northern Ireland" or something, but that is not a reason for deletion either. The fact that there is a different notable place in the world also known as "Winkle Island" is also irrelevant. Use wp:RM process to suggest a rename. --Doncram (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of hospitals in the Philippines#Mountain Province. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Theodore of Tarsus Hospital

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

This article is about an extremely small hospital that doesn't seem to be notable for anything. Since all the sources in the article are either primary or not about it and discuss it in trivial passing. For instance one source is about pine trees along the road that it's located on. I couldn't find anything about it that would pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG in a WP:BEFORE either. There wasn't even the usual trivial Covid-19 coverage most hospitals seem to be receiving right now. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this hospital is way to small. Catfurball (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of hospitals in the Philippines#Mountain Province: Barely found anything about the hospital. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Commons

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

Almost entirely unreferenced essay on a WP:NEOLOGISM that served as the title/program of a single conference in 2006. It's possible that [69] or [70] is related; all the other hits I could see are for phrases in which "Asia" and "commons" appear in the same line, as in when a photo of a place in Asia is sourced to Commons. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was originally about a conference held in 2006, which doesn't seem to go past WP:NEVENT. The later edit which attempted to introduce coverage of this as a concept seems to be largely unrelated OR. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it's not entirely clear what the subject of the article is: a conference or a concept. Neither appear notable - the article has no independent sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | [babble] || 04:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Greene

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

This article seems to be about a none notable artist. Since all the sources in it are primary or dead links, and I was unable to find multiple in-depth sources about him in a WP:BEFORE. So, this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ARTIST, work(s) not "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.". Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple, he has won significant critical attention, for example, his inclusion in the Smithsonian Institution exhibit I described below. See "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources not on the state of sourcing in an article"; WP:ARTN. You can call me "Al" Al Leluia81 (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A non-notable, commercial illustrator; does not meet WP:ARTIST criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. No collections in notable museums, no indepth critical SIGCOV. Netherzone (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, Greene is a notable fine artist, not a non-notable commercial artist. According to this source, "A Higher Power", in the article, in 1990, Harry Anderson, (note: Anderson is in the Illustrator's Hall of Fame), recommended commissions he was offered, to be offered to Nathan Greene instead.

"A freelance illustrator at the time, Greene jumped at the chance to create work of a more permanent nature". The first painting he completed, Chief of the Medical Staff, is one of his signature canvases. In a dramatic, tightly cropped composition that evokes the luminescent palette of Maxfield Parrish, Christ steadies a surgeon’s hand as he makes his initial incision."

That painting, Chief of the Medical Staff is fine art, not commercial art. He has been doing fine art ever since.

That article (an independent secondary source, from Minneapolis, in the article) that was posted online in 2005 also said, "Today, a Greene original goes for $25,000 to $50,000, and there’s a two-year waiting list to get one". See sixth paragraph.. That is the equivalent of ~$33,271 to ~$66,543 in 2020. You can call me "Al". Al Leluia81 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I'll miss it. Greene's idea seems to be to have Jesus photobombing contemporary day-to-day events like a business meeting [71] or assisting in surgery (note: without PPE). One of the (few) somewhat more in-depth sources, [72] asks the question: "Greene’s work has obvious populist appeal, but is it truly important art? Or just evangelical kitsch, a technically superior version of those cheap plastic figurines of the Son of God playing football with schoolkids?" and favorably compares Greene's the Introduction, https://www.nathangreene.com/fullsize/40/72 with Michelangelo's Fall and Expulsion from Garden of Eden https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelo,_Fall_and_Expulsion_from_Garden_of_Eden_00.jpg Greene has more in common with Harry Anderson (artist). The problem with Greene (and several other Seventh-day Adventist artists) is that coverage only seems to exists in LDS-affiliated sources that care more about their religiosity than the quality of the work. To answer Beato's question: Yes, it's evangelical kitsch. We should have articles about evangelical kitsch painters, but we do need significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and evidence of acquisitions by major collecting art institutions and that's missing. Vexations (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, I found your comment that Greene's idea seems to be to have Jesus photobombing contemporary day-to-day events like a business meeting [1] or assisting in surgery (note: without PPE). funny, for I have never looked at it that way. That God is omnipresent, and Jesus is God, so Jesus is already in the scene, would be a Christian way to see it. Greene's art with Jesus in medical situations takes what Christians view as reality and he creates a concrete image of it, that Jesus is everywhere, including the operating room, rather than that He would jump into the picture for a photo opportunity. (I also would question whether Jesus would need PPE, as the Eternal Great Physician; a painting with Jesus needed to wear a mask to stay "safe", or to obey a "stay at home" quarantine order would be really strange. I can't imagine why Jesus would ever need hand sanitizer, either.) I found your comments and perspective helpful, because I have never seen the possible humor in those images from an outsider's point of view.

The same article noted that Jesus is found in other kinds of pop culture but is "less established" in contemporary art, and that curators make room for "dung-smeared Madonnas and crucifixes in urine" but "genuine, unironic reverence is not found in Manhattan or Artforum." Then, on the same business painting you mention, it reports an exception, that one Sunday a painting of Greene's was the on cover of New York Times Magazine in a photo of an office showing a desk "and—most prominently—a spectacular painting hanging on the plain white wall." The author continued:

Even reprinted in godless fish wrap, The Senior Partner is instantly memorable. Remarkably, the Times didn’t even bother to mention the artist’s name. It was an oversight that might have driven a lesser man to despair, but Nathan Greene, the artist who painted The Senior Partner, doesn’t seem particularly interested in personal glory.

After his question on whether it is evangelic kitsch, the author's responded to that question, saying:

And even at its most sentimental, his work is never mere décor: While millions of Americans profess to have a close personal relationship with Jesus now, few artists working in any medium have documented this phenomenon as tellingly as Greene has."

Second, you also commented that we do need significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and I agree. The issue is largely an absence of research, especially research not focused on SDA.

A search for "Nathan Greene" in Google will yield mainly Nathanael Greene, the American historical figure, and the many other Nathan Greene's and Greens. It took several hours for me to find Nathan Greene's NASA work verified and his inclusion in the Smithsonian Institution's Air and Space Museum.

Both the article you referenced above, and the "The Christian Rockwell" article I recovered from the History are substantial, independent and secondary. This is still at the stub level.

There are many avenues to explore. I did a fast search today and found other videos, which are possible source of material. See WP:PUBLISH. One is by the Christian Ophthalmology Society. It is on Greene's commission Be Thou My Vision. It can be expected that much of the material to be found on Greene's Christian subject matter will be in Christian source material, just as secular art is mainly covered in secular works; that does not make it automatically non-independent.

From what I have seen so far, this article can be massively improved. A thorough search on this subject will take weeks, or even longer. I am willing to do it. I am busy with other things I will complete first, but will work on research and will make improvements by the end of the year.

While I agree that Seventh Day Adventist (non-independent) sources are relatively easy to find on a Google search's first page, better (independent) sources for this encyclopedia will more likely be found on page 23, or only after hours of searching. That no one has found them does not mean they do not exist.

See "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources not on the state of sourcing in an article".

WP:ARTN says: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."

I believe the article as it was when this AfD was posted is a good example of very poor writing and referencing, on a notable subject. Its focus on Seventh Day Adventism makes it appear that this artist's claim to fame is a single art show at an Adventist College, and that occasionally Adventists add one of his paintings to the wall of an Adventist building, and throw a party. I see that.

I also see that no attempt appears to have been made to improve or save the article yet. Before nominating: checks and alternatives. You can call me "Al" Al Leluia81 (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:ARTIST:

9. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

10. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

11. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

12. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I will be addressing these factors:

There was an erroneous deletion of a secondary source when an editor disagreed with one of its statements that I found in the article's history. The URL is dead, but I found it in the Wayback Machine. This is a secondary source that is independent of the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) group.

I remind you that articles on Christian subjects are generally covered by Christian sources, just as secular topics are covered by secular press, and this being a Baptist publication is not reason for exclusion. It refers to Greene as a "Christian Rockwell", "a popular painter", and it says "His big break came when fellow artist Harry Anderson recommended him for some work", noting Anderson "was one of the nation’s top illustrators". Anderson is in the Illustrator's Hall of Fame; scroll down to 1994.

The article notes Greene's "Chief of the Medical Staff" painting is given out in some hospitals and the image is "displayed in physicians’ offices and medical facilities across the country". This is one piece of evidence that Greene meets "9. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

I am linking examples below to art as example, much of it on galleries online, not because I expect anyone to buy this kind of art, but to demonstrate that I am not expecting you to take my word for anything. (I expect some readers here might be more inclined to buy a canister of freeze-dried cockroaches rather than an image of Jesus.)

As a Christian with a longstanding interest in modern Jesus art, I will informally say that one characteristic of Nathan Greene's work is its affordability. There are many Christian-related artists, for example this site devoted to Christian art; scroll down to the list of >200 artists. This is the Nathan Greene page.

In general, most have few smaller works. Even a card from Mormon artist Greg Olsen; click "stationery" is almost $6. This is standard, and most artists have no images much below that price. Some have nothing in that price range. Finding prints for $40 and up is not hard; finding inexpensive images is not easy.

Greene, however, offers many works as 5 x 7 postcards, suitable for framing for $1 each, & drops the price lower as more are purchased. He calls this a "postcard collection", see the column on the left. This makes it affordable for women with "card ministries" to buy his images in quantity & add them to cards. (In every church I have been in there are ladies who send cards to a list of people who many be lonely, widowed, having birthdays, surgeries, etc. They may send out 10 to 20 cards a month and cannot afford to pay $7 a card.)

If someone will be undergoing surgery, they may be given a Nathan Greene "Chief of the Medical Staff" image. If the doctor doesn't know what is wrong with them yet, they may receive "The Difficult Case". I know of no other Christian artists with medical images like this that are hung on the walls of hospitals, comforting people, and although I have looked, over the years, (I enjoy modern Jesus art), I do not know of any other contemporary Jesus-related artist who is close to being this affordable.

This means his work is out there, on walls, and refrigerator doors and circulating to friends about to undergo medical procedures, on a daily basis, throughout the year. It is not only sold as 5 x 7 postcards, he also has his art collection on USB drive. This may be used by pastors to illustrate sermons, and in other ways. Greene's art is not just hanging in museums, it is part of people's everyday lives. Where it comes to price, Nathan Greene is an innovator.

Although you may not have heard of him, Nathan Greene is one of the top contemporary artists of images of Jesus. The deleted article (2008) in the article history also states that Greene's "The Senior Partner" image of Jesus with a businessman "appeared last year on the cover of the New York Times Sunday magazine." Though it would be good to have corroboration, my point is also that this article, a secondary source, should not have been deleted.

I have not searched the entire history. There may have been other losses to this article. A history search is supposed to be done before an AfD is posted. See Before nominating under "B. Carry out these checks": "3. Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing."

Another attribute of Greene is that most artists depict Christ with only white sheep (Psalm 23). Some people feel like they are misfits, or "black sheep." Though small, Greene's Black Sheep Collection, although I am no expert, may be the largest group of images of Jesus with black sheep in modern Christian art.

It is worth remembering that whether anyone views Greene's Jesus-related paintings as "kitsch" or not, that is irrelevant to notability. Also note that those works are only some of what he has done. There is also his other work, on other subjects.

After clicking that link, note the baseball watercolor, second row, on the right. Greene says the president of the American Academy of Art published that image, and that it was hung on the wall of the American Academy of Art for 25 years "until I asked if I could have it back, which they very kindly agreed to do."

Recalling that notability is an attribute of a subject, look at that painting. If you know of a better painting of baseball anywhere, I would like to see it. Take another look as well at the Gouache Wash of Princess Anne. With all due respect, it does not appear anyone recommending "Delete" has looked at his art or knows this artist well enough to know he has done topics other than Jesus.

Greene's work also includes his Western watercolors. Note the detail in the historical paintings, especially Abraham Lincoln. His also has painted somewhat surrealistic apocalyptic art.

Now consider NASA. As the Greene article mentions, he has done work for NASA. As the artist says, NASA commissioned him. This is some of his Space Shuttle art. Note the detail in these images.

NASA commissions should be a cue that this artist is notable. This page says this painting of Greene's is part of a traveling exhibit of the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum for their “NASA Art, 50 Years of Exploration” display, and notes there is a "companion book by the same title, published by: Abrams".

See also Irving Arts Center; "NASA|ART: 50 Years of Exploration": NASA|ART Educational Resources.

Nathan Greene's bio is on page 5.11 of the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition artist's page in the document above.

Information about the NASA Art Program is on page 5.2. It says the NASA archive has over 800 works of art, and the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum has over 2,000. If you note the artists whose works were chosen, inclusion in an exhibit of this magnitude signifies that Nathan Greene's astronomical art in the opinion of possibly both NASA and the Smithsonian Institution rated favorably in comparison with world-class artists.

Regarding notability, for those interested in contemporary Christian art, Nathan Greene is among the top artists of his day. He is called a "Christian Rockwell" because some of his paintings are similar to Rockwell. He received commission referrals from Harry Anderson, and all of that should satisfy that he "is regarded as an important figure" (9).

As it states in his biography in the Smithsonian exhibit, Nathan Greene "is known for his Christian art in which he places Christ in contemporary settings such as the operating room. Greene's unique style combines contemporary painting with a background in classical art in a way that yields very realistic human, animal, and landscape subjects."

This helps to satisfy "10. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Unlike other modern Christian artists, such as Stephen Sawyer's paintings of Jesus in a boxing ring, or with a drug addict, Greene places Jesus, to show the all-present (omnipresent) quality of God present as Spirit in people's daily lives, centered within professions, especially the medical professions.

Danny Hahlbohm places an angel (not Jesus) with many images of police, firefighters and the military, and Jesus with President Trump; scroll to "You Are Not Alone Mr. President". He has no medical images. A patient likely won't see a Sawyer or Hahlbohm work, or any other Christian artist going into surgery, but patients may see one of Greene's detailed medical images there, or at their dentist.

The Christian Medical & Dental Associations sell Greene's art like "In Good Hands", for dentistry, and also sell "Physician's Prayer" and "Difficult Case"; about 2/3 of the way down the page. Greene is the only artist there, and the only one with a Medical Collection.

To sum, Greene has "11. … created … a significant or well-known work". He is very well known among those who like this kind of art. He also has "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." More would be better, but he has all he needs to satisfy notability. As an artist who has not sought publicity, he is a more challenging subject to research than a Justin Bieber, but notability is notability regardless of the state of development of an article. This is labeled a stub at its base.

He has won "significant critical attention" (12 c), to satisfy the final condition of WP:ARTIST. In addition, having any work included in a prestigious Smithsonian Institution traveling exhibit and book could be "substantial" (e.g., if he is the main or only space shuttle artist). He also had one painting in the American Academy of Art for 25 years, the Detroit Tiger baseball watercolor.

His work "NASA Shuttle Endeavour STS-49, Post Landing Convoy Operations, Dryden Flight Research Center, May, 1992 Oil on canvas 45″ x 60″" was selected for that "display at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in the 'NASA Art, 50 Years of Exploration'" exhibit (quote is from Nathan Greene's NASA art album).

Scroll down to find "NASA Gamma Ray Observatory being hoisted into a test chamber prior to launch on Space Shuttle Atlantis STS-37 April 5, 1991," a second painting in the same NASA celebration Smithsonian Air & Space Museum traveling exhibit.

NASA was founded in 1958. Greene's work that was commissioned in the early 1990's was still being used by them in 2008, over 15 years later for the NASA 50th Anniversary. See Sustained; the idea that a notable topic retains notability over time, like Greene's NASA work.

The final test is that "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" is met, based on (c) alone.

As for the comments by those asking to "Delete"; however the article "seems", its notability is not based on current appearance. Also, its sources are not all either primary or dead. See Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources. The book is secondary. The Minnesota/Twin Cities article is also secondary. I have not looked at all the others thoroughly, but both deadlinks are in the Wayback Machine.

The Versacare source has an image here. The Ramussen exhibit has a capture here.

With a brief look at the article history I found that delete of a secondary source, in the Wayback Machine, as I noted. There may be other material that can be retrieved. This may always be a brief article; there is no way to tell, because complete, methodical research has never yet been done.

The second "Delete" is opinion without evidence. The third claims Greene is a "non-notable, commercial illustrator". That is opinion without evidence again here. Greene has been both a commercial and fine artist, and is today known more for his fine art. Also, there is no ban on commercial artists having articles on Wikipedia.

While I appreciate the more considered response Vexations made, I think the issue is not so much that though sources may only "seem" to be only in SDA (differs from LDS) publications, and while we may differ on the quality of his work, (I think Greene is an outstanding artist), what is out there is not easy to find. The little that is here has been overtaken by an what I consider an SDA desire to have this be an article about themselves.

Notice the photo that dominates this small article, of Ellen G. White and her husband James with the words "Part of a series on Seventh-day Adventist Church". (Yes, the "The" is missing.)

The Adventist's differ greatly on some areas of doctrine with every mainstream Christian denomination. Here is a comparison of beliefs.

Many do not consider them "Christian". Some say they are a "cult", or apocalyptic cult. Others consider them a fringe group. Not unlike the Mormons founding the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to serve as an ambassador, I believe the Adventists also use members, including those in the arts, to improve how they are perceived.

I have glanced through some areas and saw one place where Greene is listed, I will guess by someone affiliated with SDA, as an "Adventist artist." The valuable article I found in the history has a quote by Greene saying his art is "nondenominational." His website and Gallery do not mention he is SDA.

I have been aware of this artist for years and I did not know he was SDA until I came online to do a few random edits, landed on a family of artists who do Christian art, checked the Christian Artists category, and saw Nathan Greene was not there. I searched for Nathan Greene, found he does have an article, and was surprised to see it actually had an AfD on it, then saw what is there: a disorganized bunch of sentences with a strange focus on what paintings have been hung in various Adventist buildings. With no picture of the artist and an overshadowing picture of Ellen G. White.

The article on Nathan Greene must be on Nathan Greene; it is a BLP. It is not "on" Seventh Day Adventism. The POV editing to skew this topic into making Greene an advertisement, is why it reads like one. It needs many things but the main thing is it needs to be a BLP, that means disallowing this claim that the article is "on" SDA.

Adventist materials can be used, like any denomination, but they must be used the right way and in proper proportion to the rest of the article, as well as to get leads.

Whenever you see an emblem in a biography "stamping" someone with ownership, it is potential clue to notability: It could well mean, as I believe it does here, that there is a desire to "hitch a wagon to a star" or bask in the reflected light of someone's positive reputation, because there is a star there; and something to be gained.

The Seventh Day Adventists should have been notified about this AfD, and also the Christians.

There was a 2009 AfD; result was "Keep." Note comments here.

May God bless you, and thank you for your time. Al Leluia81 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding permanent link for Nathan Greene page.Al Leluia81 (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Leluia81, that's a lot to digest. Let me address one of your claims: that Greene meets WP:NARTIST#2 (The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique)

Where it comes to price, Nathan Greene is an innovator He is not. Even Harry Anderson, Greene's mentor produced postcards. See for example [73]. Cheap prints have been available for centuries. I'm somewhat familiar with what the French call "imagerie poplulaire", exemplified by the Épinal print. When I visited the museum in Epinal, I was shown 19th-century prints that, according to the museum guide, were so cheap that farmers would put up images of saints in their stables to bless their cows. Cheap religious prints are not an innovation by Greene and there are no sources that corroborate that claim. Vexations (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, I did not mean to imply no one in the history of art has made it affordable. In the current market, it is part of what makes his work widespread. His greater innovation is his niche of medical art involving Jesus and style. There is no one else like that. Al Leluia81 (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with most of what was said by Al Leluia81, I do agree that the article was unfairly hijacked by Seventh-Day Adventists in what seems to be a crappy attempt to connect them to "notable" people. Even if they only had a slight connection to the church. List_of_Seventh-day_Adventists is full of people who have absolutely zero connection to Seventh-Day Adventism, but still have their "Part of a series on Seventh-day Adventist Church" banner plastered in their article. Often at the cost of their own picture and biographical details. Which is really a shame and rather scammy of whoever canvased their banner everywhere in places that it doesn't belong. It seems like they do the same thing with sourcing also. It seems like they write a bunch of extremely subpar "articles" about people just so they have their name attached to the person in some fashion. Even if the person has nothing to do with the church. Then they ref bomb their "articles" all over Wikipedia to generate clicks to their websites and build faux street cred. A good portion of the articles in List_of_Seventh-day_Adventists seem to have been created by people connected to the church. While I agree there is usually no harm in say a Christian writing about Christianity because they have an interest in the topic (or us citing them in an article), that's not what is going on with the Seventh-day Adventists. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, I don't agree with this AfD or how it was done; Greene's astronomical work with NASA and the Smithsonian alone makes him notable. But you have stated well a big problem of - "hijacking" - of articles to push a promotional agenda. These POV edits create bad articles, and these "Part of a series on Seventh Day Adventist" banners are, and I say this understanding that there are very sincere SDA people out there, but it seems to me a form of parasitism, attaching themselves to SDA members and overtaking them as a subject. Your comment about using Wikipedia to bring people to their sites hits the target. No BLP is "on" the religion. I had clicked that list of Adventists before to see if they all have banners. No one should be using banners as marketing tools to "own" biographies. This "Nathan Greene" article has been warped into a "The Seventh Day Adventism of Nathan Greene" article: Unacceptable. It would be nice if there would be a way to remove every SDA banner on every biography across the board simultaneously. You can call me Al. Al Leluia81 (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, first, from what I can see it would appear that a "reasonable search" was not done as part of an attempt to improve or save the article, or other steps taken via the addition of proper tags, adding a note to the Talk page, finding material by searching the History, and other steps that are part of Before nominating: checks and alternatives.

See Alternatives to deletion: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page".

Second, you have described a very big problem with these "Part of a series on Seventh-day Adventist Church" portals being used in mischievous ways. You have said not just this article but others have been negatively impacted, with that banner misused. What I hear is you saying is that the portal has created an incentive to create non-notable spam, and they are being placed, at other articles' expense, to channel readers toward SDA information.

If what you are saying is true, that many in the list of Adventists are not Adventists, then that might be defamatory. Saying a vegetarian was seen eating meat can be defamatory, because it may decrease their reputation among their peers. Likewise with calling an Christian an atheist, or the reverse. As an online encyclopedia, we cannot have people's biographies marked with images of Ellen and James White, if they are not Adventists, and even if they are, it could be invasion of privacy. Greene is an Adventist, but he has not noted that fact on his general site or online gallery. I see you removed it and the article seems relieved to no longer have Ellen and James White overshadowing and diverting attention from Nathan Greene. It is troubling that there are other articles where this is a problem.

With the possible exceptions of major leaders of this religious group, as I see it, the "Part of a series on Seventh-day Adventist Church" should not be permitted on BLPs, as they are contentious and possible defamation. Besides not being true. No denomination or other group should be "branding" articles with their insignia in this way. Creating better guidelines for such portal banners could decrease the incentive for new spam creation, as well as having fewer Wikipedia articles "hi-jacked" and made into advertisements by any who are doing this. It may be possible to deal with this problem from the standpoint of policy. Have any suggestions? I am also curious about any tags you or other editors think would be appropriate for the "Nathan Greene" article (other than AfD). Al Leluia81 (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Leluia81: A few things, first of all I know what the guidelines about doing a BEFORE are and I stated I did one in my nomination. So, I will request that next time you read the nomination message before passing judgment on a nominator and they did (or didn't do). Also, WP:AGF. That aside, I think the three people who voted delete agree with me that this person isn't notable. Which should have been enough for you to not make it personal. Second, I fully agree with you about why the Seventh-day Adventist banner being placed everywhere is problematic and shouldn't be done. While I'm not sure what specific policy it fall under, there is WP:TFD. Personally I would ask about it there and make it clear that the template is being extremely miss-used. It would likely also help to leave a message about it on @Catfurball:'s talk page. Since he seems to be the main user adding it everywhere. Along with the WP:SDA's talk page. One of those things should deal with it. At least when it comes to not using the template in places where it shouldn't be. Outside of that, I'm I don't think there is a way to have it removed from all the places it has been added to except to either have it deleted at WP:TFD or to manually remove it from everywhere that it's inappropriate like I did for this article. Adamant1 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, my comments here are not personal, so I ask you not to take offense, but rather to hear my concerns about this AfD. I was surprised when I came to Wikipedia, and happened to search for "Nathan Greene", and found his article had been proposed for deletion. I have a longstanding interest in this kind of art (modern Jesus art), and am aware Greene is among the top artists in his field. I came to your contributions page and I saw that you are making many deletion requests.

On the day you made this AfD, you first edited an AfD request for a different article at 1:35 pm on September 13.

Then you added the AfD request on the stub "Nathan Greene" at 1:49 pm on Sept. 13, fourteen minutes later.

You then created the "Articles for deletion/Nathan Greene" page at 1:53 pm, and also added "Nathan Greene" to the "Articles for Deletion" log at 1:53 pm.

Then you an AfD notice on a talk page at 1:55 pm. You then tagged another SDA article at 2:00 pm, removed a wikilink to an SDA school on another SDA article at 2:03 pm, then made another AfD notice at 2:13 pm, about 13 minutes later.

In other words, you tagged one article for deletion, then fourteen minutes later tagged "Nathan Greene", and about 13 minutes later, tagged another one. I believe there was not enough time to have fulfilled the requirements before placing this AfD. Instead, it seems to be only time to glance through the article, click some links, and possibly do a few other things before assuming the topic to be non-notable and moving to delete it.

Making an AfD request is serious business. If a person blanks a page, that page can be brought back, easily. An AfD asks to "blank" a whole article, permanently. All the time put into it is gone. An editor has to make a case to an administrator to bring it back, it is costly in terms of time, and in the meantime its wikilinks disappear, it cannot be red-linked, and no reader can find it. In some cases, having notable articles deleted can possibly cause editors to leave Wikipedia.

I see at most 14 minutes or less to fulfill the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives requirements.

You have said @Al Leluia81:: A few things, first of all I know what the guidelines about doing a BEFORE are and I stated I did one in my nomination. So, I will request that next time you read the nomination message before passing judgment on a nominator and they did (or didn't do). Also, WP:AGF..

Adamant1: There is nothing in here that I made "personal". You stated you did a "Before", then implied I did not read the nomination message and that I have "passed judgment on you". I already responded to the errors in your claim about this article in some detail, so I clearly read it.

You have also said, That aside, I think the three people who voted delete agree with me that this person isn't notable. Which should have been enough for you to not make it personal. What I hear you saying is that you believe that I should accept that you were unable to find sources, so no one else will be able to, and that if I offer a rationale to "Keep", that it is because I have "made personal" the issue, and should have agreed with you, and others who said "delete". Guidelines state, "Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator or other editors. Please see AfD How to contribute.

I have found and supplied material that this stub is about an artist whose work has been commissioned by NASA, is in the Smithsonian Institution Air & Space Museum, among other things, see Irving Arts Center; "NASA|ART: 50 Years of Exploration": Nathan Greene's bio is on page 5.11 of the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition artist's page. Your search did not find everything, so I do not see why you want to delete notable material. I base my "Keep" on facts. Please see Proof by assertion. Thank you for your time. Al Leluia81 (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Leluia81: A few things. For one, WP:AGF is not contingent on if the person that your not assume good faith about "takes it personal" or not. It is 100% determined how your acting toward the person though. The fact that you looked through my edits to find a reason why, based on how I've edited things, this AfD nomination isn't legitimate is totally not following WP:AGF. It's also totally personal, because there is no guideline that someone can't do two AfDs 14 minutes apart from each other. There's zero reason someone would look through another users edit history to find something to pick about how they are doing things if they were assuming good faith about the person. It's also WP:HOUNDING. Which includes "tracking users edits." Ultimately for all you know I could have done the WP:BEFORE "before" I did the nominations on my time. Which is exactly what I did. It's one of the reasons it's called a freaken WP:BEFORE, because it can be done any damn time before you do the nominations. The fact that you've missed that completely obvious fact is just more conformation that your not assuming good faith, WP:HOUNDING me, and coming at this completely wrong. Other then that, I have nothing else to say about it. You can attack me all you want, but it's irrelevant to the AfD and isn't going to change how it goes. At this point by continuing to do it your WP:BLUDGEON the whole thing. Everyone knows what your opinion is. Everyone can easily tell your claim that he's notable for being commissioned NASA, which you've said like 4 times now, isn't based on the guidelines. You don't need to repeat it or really say anything. BTW, your whole thing that it's hard to recreate an article after it's been deleted or that you have to appeal to an admin is total crap to. Nothing stops anyone from recreating deleted articles. People it all the time. It's not even that difficult to have an AfD outcome changed if someone wanted to go that route. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Solar mirror. Sandstein 17:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial moon

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

Article appears to have been created based on a claim by Chengdu (China) officials that they would put artificial moons into orbit. Does not appear to have been a serious or viable claim then, and nothing has come of it since. Does not meet WP:GNG as all coverage was regarding the initial announcement, no significant coverage since. Article borders on a hoax as it is currently written. Paisarepa (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other artificial moons have been made in the past, I just added in a bit about Russia's attempt to do the same back in 1999 for the same purpose. That got coverage also. Dream Focus 05:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 05:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like a redirect ~~to Solar mirror~~ might be a good option; there is already a section on "Space reflectors for night illumination". Reliable sources usually refer to the Russian experiments as 'orbital mirrors', calling them 'artificial moons' generally only when they are mentioned in articles about this Chinese announcement. Paisarepa (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Solar mirror per Paisarepa. It doesn't require a separate article at this point. (If someone were to park the Death Star in orbit, then we could reconsider it.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's claim that this is not serious is false because this has already been done – see the Moonlight Batteries of WW2, for example. Back in the 16th century, Shakespeare made extensive use of the moon as a theme, including the hapless efforts of Robin Starveling, who attempts to portray the moon with a lanthorn. I myself even have a replica moon lamp on my desk here. Such other techniques do not use solar mirrors and so that's not an appropriate merge target for this broad topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A broad topic article has to have a single primary topic. An article attempting to join solar mirrors, a military spotlight unit, a humorous scene in a play, and your desk lamp would be orders of magnitude too scattered and disconnected. See the expert test.

It passes the expert test because these are all representations or simulations of the moon in some way and so the expert would be a cultural selenologist – the sort of person who would write a general source like Depictions of the Moon in Western Visual Culture. What WP:BROAD is talking about is the issue of homonyms – totally unrelated topics such as this or that. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subjects you listed are absolutely not a 'single primary topic' as required regardless of how you try to construe WP:BROAD. Further, your argument is a straw man. Those subjects are not part of the article, nor would any reasonable editor seriously consider adding them. You're arguing for an article that does not and will never exist, rather than the article that is actually the subject of this discussion. Paisarepa (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Solar_mirror#Space_reflectors_for_night_illumination. Wikipedia already covers this topic there, and the article as it stands is a pretty poor quality stub. Diluting content is seldom a good idea, particularly when there is already so little of it. Reyk _YO! 09:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Solar_mirror#Space_reflectors_for_night_illumination as per Clarityfriend and Reyk. Already covered, and that article's section can be expanded. Not to mention calling these artificial moons is less specific than their actual purpose.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the reliable sources which exist the subjects meets our GNG. Additionally, the article solar mirrors is not an appropriate merge target. Lightburst (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you go into more detail on these sources that show it meets WP:GNG? All the sources I can find are based on the announcement of a single solar mirror project that appears to have never made it off the drawing board and has not seen any significant coverage since. There is coverage of other solar mirrors but those are typically not referred to as 'artificial moons' in reliable sources, and if coverage of other solar mirrors is the claim to notability then this is a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK, further justifying a merge/redirect. Paisarepa (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Solar_mirror#Space_reflectors_for_night_illumination. Nowhere in reliable sources are these things refereed to as "artificial moons" and what are, solar mirrors for light illumination, is already covered in the solar mirror article. So this is an extremely pointless content fork. Also, it's completely ridiculous to argue that the article should be kept because some random niche scientific discipline considers every single earth bound thing that gives out light to be an "artificial moon." Maybe someone somewhere was like "hey, the moon glows, and this glows. So this is an "artificial moon", but that's no excuse to keep an article that fails the notability guidelines and is a completely redundant content fork anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Solar mirror#Space reflectors for night illumination. There is not much on the actual topic of this article aside from the initial reports on its announcement and development, so there is no reason for this to be split off from the article that covers this kind of project. The idea that this should be kept because there are a bunch of completely unrelated things that can also be referred to as an "artificial moon" has absolutely no bearing on this discussion, because that proposed article does not exist, and thus is not the article that is under consideration in this discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. That seems to be the subject. Looking at the sourcing of the future artificial moon (WP:CRYSTAL may apply btw), it is still an object with "reflective coating that deflects sunlight to the Earth". That seems sufficiently close to the solar mirror content that it's not necessary to retain something about what right now are just plans. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most content to Solar mirror#Space reflectors for night illumination, but redirect title to satellite. Clearly an interesting topic, but the original concept appears to simply be satellites, with space reflectors a later development. And indeed, the Death Star wasn't a solar reflector... Montanabw^(talk) 17:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree regarding the redirect to satellite. Using the term to refer to solar mirrors is not common in reliable sources except during the short period of time immediately following the announcement of the Chinese project. Paisarepa 04:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Solar mirror which already covers space reflectors. –dlthewave ☎ 18:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be possible for an admin to SNOW MERGE this since it has 8 merge votes and only three keeps? I highly doubt it's going to be kept at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has significant coverage for gng and i have added that it may not be possible with the proposed design. Can add more if the article is not deleted --Investigatory (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
also given that the moons may be kept in place by rocket thrusters it wouldnt be a sattelite then so this is a novel concept under development. --Investigatory (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be deleted on WP:TOSOON grounds then. Since Wikipedia doesn't usually have articles about a product if it's still a "novel concept" that hasn't been created yet. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The American space agency's website uses this term. Googling site:NASA.gov "Artificial moon" reveals ample results. [74] The article is different than it was at the start of this AFD. It list the various things that could be called an artificial moon and links to them, along with valid information. Dream Focus 12:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you say the results on "various things" (most of them seem to about the international space station), when this article isn't about "various things." Its abour objects that reflect lught. Not the international space station. Otherwise, just put a brief mention in the article about the space station that it was called an artificial moon. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and the point of an article isn't to be a list of every obscure thing that might have gone by a certain name. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On first page results of that search of nasa.gov, 'artificial moon' refers to: 1. Mir, 2. Sputnik 1, 3. von Braun's proposal for an earth-orbiting base for moon trips, 4. Dawn (spacecraft) which orbits Ceres, 5. the external occulter of a telescope used as an 'artificial moon' to simulate an eclipse for photography, 6. Sputnik again, 7. the International Space Station, 8. synthesized moon rock. None support the definition used in this article ("anything put into orbit to reflect sunlight down to Earth"). Six results make a strong argument for a redirect to satellite and the other two are using the term 'artificial moon' in a very different context (simulated moon for photography, and synthesized moon rock). Paisarepa 20:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. One aspect of it being similar enough to another subject doesn't seem like a good merge reason for me.★Trekker (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1. Nomination withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko

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

This article doesn't site any sources and is written like an advert/resume for the person that it is about. So it fails WP:GNG and a strong case could also be made for deleting the article based on TNT grounds. Although I know he is a judge and there's WP:JUDGE, the doesn't automatically make a judge notable. As it says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." So, I think given the lack sources in this case, and the fact that all I could find were extremely trivial ones, that this article should be deleted. Wikipedia isn't a resume hosting site. Also, although he contributed to a few essays, it doesn't seem like they had any impact in the field of international law or been widely reviewed. So, WP:NPROF or whatever guideline for it wouldn't apply for notability either. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eminent judge of international reputation who has served as a member of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court and who now sits on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. ([75]). This article needs cleanup but AfD is not cleanup. If policy were needed he clearly passes NPOL #1 as a judge who has held multiple international roles, but any sensible evaluation of a person of this stature would conclude that he is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring an article to have sources or be deleted isn't "cleanup." Neither is dealing with one that is an advert. We deal with them all the time in AfDs and it's a basic standard of Wikipedia not to have un-sourced articles. Nowhere does NPOL or any other notability guideline say otherwise. Like I said in my nomination WP:NPOL specifically says as much and is clear that judges don't get a special pass from the notability guidelines. It's almost like you didn't even bother to read the article, nomination, or WP:NPOL before you voted. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there was a special pass for judges. I said that he passes NPOL with flying colours, based on the fact that he is a judge who has served in multiple international roles. By the way, although it's a moot point given his pass of NPOL, he has also published several articles cited more than 50 times: [76], so there's a decent case for NPROF as well. As for the "un-sourced" claim: of course articles need sources. But sending an article to AfD when there are sources available is using AfD as cleanup. And I actually did bother to read the article, which is how I know he passes NPOL. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aleatory has since removed the resume-type content and added a few citations, so most of the issues raised by the nominator are no longer of concern for this article. In addition, a judge of the International Criminal Court is presumed to be notable per WP:NPOL: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office ...." (emphasis added). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that were added are extremely trivial. Especially the ones that are about how a criminal case able to proceed. Which only name drop him. Both of you are ignoring the whole "in-depth coverage" part of the notability guidelines. Your also leaving out the part of WP:NPOL after the cherry picked quote that says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. Which is where the lack of in-depth coverage that he still doesn't have even with the new sources comes in. BTW, I'm aware it says "local official", but as far as I know it still applies and notability is not a guarantee. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)\[reply]

The part about "local officials" and "unelected candidates" applies to local officials and unelected candidates. It's just irrelevant to people who have held international office. Please stop bringing it up for this particular AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:JUDGE, and WP:ANYBIO as internationally recognised in the field of law, appointed to international/national legal bodies. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, high ranking international judge. Obvious notability, and article was cleaned up.--Chuka Chief (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ignore the "obviously notable" thing, but the article wasn't cleaned up since it still has the whole non-encyclopedic bit about his religious beliefs. You get rid of that and all you have left is that he was appointed and is a member of something. Which isn't encyclopedic either. There should at least be something about his time as a judge or more beyond "he's a judge." --Adamant1 (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AleatoryPonderings and Catfurball's improvements. The article now has decent sourcing. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, borderline speedy at this point, as a judge in a multilateral international treaty body. BD2412 T 14:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I might as well. There's no point in continuing it. So, can someone close this? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm happily withdrawing this nom, with thanks to Gidonb for their help in finding sources in Dutch. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ewald Krolis

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

This is an unfortunate case. This musician clearly existed and released music (just search YouTube or Discogs), but I can find no obviously RS to verify any of the claims in the article—so a WP:V failure at the moment. Closest I got was [77], which looks like a blog but might be reliable. The article in Dutch has the same source as this one. Sorting this into Netherlands-related discussions even though Krolis was Surinamese in the hopes that some Dutch speakers might be able to evaluate this source. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment Here's a great source: Weltak, Marcel. Zanger Ewald Krolis maakt zijn faam waar. De Volkskrant. page 14. 1986-02-25, via Delpher 2020-09-15. Very valid towards WP:GNG. Also, here is a passing mention in a quality source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidonb (talk • contribs)

@Gidonb: How does [78] look to you? Looks reliable to me—I tried searching google.nl and it picked up something that the English-language Google didn't. (And a serious indicator of notability if Krolis has inspired a tribute band!) Ordinarily I'd want WP:THREE here but I think two refs plus the quasi-reliable blog and the passing mention you cite would be enough for me to withdraw. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the WP:GNG, given the sources that AleatoryPonderings and I found. gidonb (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 05:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffry B. Skiba

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

Inventor who fails WP:BASIC. There are a few passing mentions of a fabric he patented in 2005 that may have some Covid-19–related uses ([79], [80]) and one questionably reliable profile ([81]), but nothing else I can see. Note: "Jeffry" is indeed spelled without the typical second E. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 05:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Kashaev

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

Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - fails GNG/NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in spite of its name, the Russian Professional Football League isn't fully pro so it's an NFOOTY fail. I can't see GNG being met either unless anyone can find some in-depth Russian sources Spiderone 14:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 05:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tingley, Missouri

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

GNIS calls it a "populated place" and a "trading point". State Historical Society suggests it was a country store. Google maps leads me to some woods in the middle of nowhere; I can probably county the number of man-made structure within several miles of the points on both hands. A WP:SPS postal office database cited in the article claims there was a post office there for around eight years around the turn of the 20th century. Sources suggest nothing was there until the late 1890s, so no need to check the 1886 topo. Not on the 1954 topo. GNIS says it should be on the topo map for Wagoner, Missouri, but the 1956 Wagoner topo shows nothing. Next Wagoner topo map is 2011, not on that, either. Results of a Gbooks search: This book has a hit for "Tingley, Missouri" in the index, but it turns out after reading the page that it's a reference to a person named "Missouri Tingley". Found a record that someone supposedly from Tingley bought 8 hogs in 1905, but since the post office was apparently open until 1906, that may just be an indication he got his mail at the office. This looks promising, but is evidently a different place, as that Tingley is supposedly on a railroad between St. Joseph, Missouri and Des Moines, Iowa; this Tingley is nowhere near either of those places. With "trading point" seeming to indicate a store, not a town, nothing really significant coming up in historical sources, and a lack of appearance on topo maps, I think it's safe to say this supposed unincorporated community fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG, and is probably a GNIS error. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero hits in newspapers.com, no evidence it was a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 14:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Destroy Rebuild Until God Shows. Consensus is that redirecting is appropriate. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Stern

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NMUSIC Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep as a member of two notable bands, or redirect to Destroy Rebuild Until God Shows. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above as not showing independent notability but can be restored in future if notability can be proven, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travel aversion

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

No evidence that this is a phenomenon that has been the subject of sustained comment by academics or laypeople. In total, there are 24 hits for it on Google Scholar, and most appear to be more or less casual, non-technical uses. The term was used as a study parameter in doi:10.1300/J073v20n01_01 and briefly commented in doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12213, but there is very little else substantial I can see. While it is true that people may not like to travel in certain circumstances, it is not clear to me that this topic could be the subject of an article that does not consist of synthesis or original research. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination already cites some sources and it's easy to find more such as this, that and more which clearly classify and detail those who dislike travelling, being homebodies, risk-averse and the like. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Specifically, this violates WP:NOTESSAY as it is unmistakably an essay, and has been so since its creation in 2012. WP:TNT applies here; it would be easier to start over from scratch than to fix this (assuming we should even have an article on this topic; I have not assessed the WP:Notability here, so I have no opinion on that particular matter). I'll note that the user who created this, Gzorg, has created other essays in the user namespace, such as User:Gzorg/Vitamin B12. It's kind of charming to read, actually. I suppose one WP:Alternative to deletion would be to move this to User:Gzorg/Travel aversion. TompaDompa (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads as original research, just a generic description of who don't like a particular activity. Do we have articles about people who dislike watching or playing sports, or dislike reading, or dislike driving? Surely one can dig up desriptions of these attitudes. Reywas92^Talk 15:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could an actual real article be created under this name? Possibly, though I am actually highly doubtful of that based on a couple of brief searches on the term. Should we keep this stub around until such an article is created? Absolutely not, as it is pure WP:OR, and Wikpedia is not a publisher of original thought. Rorshacma (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Andrew🐉★Trekker (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, as this article still fails WP:NOTESSAY. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. These are just two words used to describe how someone feels that someone used to create an essay WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY. It is not a subject for an encyclopedia. // Timothy :: talk 16:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 00:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Golem (Minecraft)

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

Wikipedia is not a Video Game Guide, and this page does not belong here without meeting WP:GNG. SWinxy (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As failing GNG, gamecruft material. User:IanTEB even admitted it would be deleted before creating it. Hopefully they will be more discerning before making future articles, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, as making many articles like this while admitting they are non-notable can be called disruptive._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A relatively minor video game creature. Most of the content of this article is just a game guide, as are nearly all of the sources. Rorshacma (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game mob/entity failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS, rather being passing mentions, in context of the game itself and as game guide-like material. Regardless of notability bar, this is WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:GAMEGUIDE and does not require a separate article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an attempt, but this one is never going to make it over the bar. There are not enough sources to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete It's clear this fails the notability guidelines and considering the number of delete votes so far it's likely pointless to continue this since the outcome will obviously be that the article is deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention very few people who don’t play Minecraft are going to know what this thing is. Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence this creation passes GNG. At best redirect and merge to some list of minecraft creatures or such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 05:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fagan (officer)

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

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER, two sources are unreliable (tagged), the rest are passing mentions. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Rani

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

This is an unreleased film, and does not satisfy film notability. In particular, the guidelines on future films say that unreleased films are seldom notable, and this is no exception. (They are only notable if production itself has been notable.)

The article does not have a plot summary or a Reception section. A plot summary would not make it notable, and it cannot have a Reception section until it is released.

Google search on Nancy Rani shows that the film is in production, which we knew, and that there are women named Nancy Rani.

Of the three references, it appears that two are associated with the studio and one is a press release. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment This nomination appears twice in today’s listing. Mccapra (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to User:Mccapra - I am not surprised. My first attempt to nominate it (with Twinkle) hung up halfway through, after tagging the article but not creating the deletion discussion page. So I reverted the tagging of the article and repeated the nomination. I apologize if I handled this clumsy situation clumsily. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I’ve had that happen to me too. Mccapra (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 19:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 05:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet Sisters

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

This article seems to be about a non-notable local signing group. The only refrences in the article are primary, trivial, or extremely local. I couldn't find anything about them in a WP:BEFORE that would pass WP:NMUSIC either. Just a few articles about a Grime artist named Cadet. They don't even have a listing on AllMusic. Adamant1 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Jensen (musician)

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

Best as I can tell, this bio fails WP:MUSICBIO. No charting albums or songs, no major music awards (only a minor regional award), and only routine press coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 05:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Gardner Seaplane Base

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

Per WP:NAIRPORT, private airfields are generally not notable, unless they get WP:GNG-level coverage. I can only find database entries for this one, so it fails the notability guidelines. WP:NOTDIRECTORY of small private airfields. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like just some guys private seaplane parking spot, not notable. Jumpytoo Talk 06:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this were a seaplane base.... But it is not, just a very small waterside facility. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Of the several evaluative comments in the discussion, none are in support of keeping the article. In response to Timothy's request for an evaluation of sources, none are present or proffered, so there is nothing to evaluate. BD2412 T 01:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QTPK

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." WP:BEFORE showed WP:ROUTINE coverage, but not significant coverage that addressed the subject directly and in-depth or that established it meets NBUILD. // Timothy :: talk 19:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May well be notable but requires searching for Albanian sources. Full name is "Qendra Tregtare Pazari Korce" which translates to " "Bazaar Shopping Center Korce". The mall website says there are 60 stores and photos confirm it is a two-story enclosed mall. Hard to find independent coverage in English. MB 19:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't see significant coverage in any sources, Albanian or English. But I'm not sure how one searches for Albanian sources (is there a good database beyond just google searching?). Probably the best thing would be to redirect to List of shopping malls in Albania, but I'm not confident in this conclusion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: since there is an RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you, // Timothy :: talk 07:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references and nothing substantial found; a redirect isn't appropriate as QTPK hits are almost entirely Wikipedia mirrors - no sign that is a common name for the mall. The mall's own website doesn't use it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kyoritsu Women's University. Sandstein 18:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoritsu Kodo

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

No evidence of notability or coverage in reliable sources – similar Japanese page sourced only by a link to the university's official website. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Kyoritsu Women's University per WP:CHEAP. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a 2,100-capacity auditorium is notable and famous artists have performed at the venue Evangp (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not notable on its own, so redirect to Kyoritsu Women's University per WP:CHEAP. Wm335td (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just spruced it up with another artist and reference, it's definitely notable now. Evangp (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evangp, Looks like you !voted twice? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the page Evangp (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want this page deleted so bad??? The more information available the better, besides far more obscure and smaller venues exist as wikipedia articles. Let the information flow Evangp (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want it to be deleted; I !voted to redirect. Also, the refs you added do not look reliable to me. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The place may be significant in real life but in wiki we need to see WP:RS which all three references fails this, this (wikimapia is not reliable) and this (a wordpress site). There might be some mentions in Japanese I guess but its beyond my ability to search those out. As presently it fails WP:SIGCOV, I vote for delete, if some RS is added, I may change my vote. --Mamushir (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kyoritsu Women's University The Japanese article is just a redirect to the company that runs the university, and the Japanese university article only has a WP:ABOUTSELF source citing when the building was built, and that it was host to some concerts. Jumpytoo Talk 23:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kyoritsu Women's University. I had a look through Japanese sources a while back and couldn't find any significant coverage (this maybe?). It gets mentioned in passing every now and then, and occasionally in English as well; since it's not a controversial topic I personally don't mind leaving the content of the article as is on the University's page since it could be useful and I feel bad for Evangp. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 05:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Brian

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

Notability concerns. Apparently set a world record at 15, but that isn't enough for notability. The only source is based on a press release from the family. The name is common so it's difficult to search, all I've found is [82] which doesn't suggest notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete setting a trivial record with no actual meaning and no following of it is not in and of itself a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 05:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Story, Missouri

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

Not an extinct town like the article claims, not a populated place like GNIS claims, does not pass WP:GEOLAND, does not pass WP:GNG. It's an old rural post office, see the State Historical Society which calls it "Story Post Office". Google maps doesn't seem to know where Story is, although a query for "Story Post Office" takes me to a hayfield. Not on the 1938 topo. Not on the 1886 topo. I find the latter telling, as the only places in the immediate area marked on the 1886 topo are Roscoe, Lebeck, and Oyer. I haven't looked into Oyer, but Roscoe is a recognized village, and Lebeck seems to have been an actual populated place, which suggests that the others that should have been on the 1886 topo are spurious GNIS entries of non-communities. Fairly clearly just a post office. GNIS is good for determining that something with a given name was located at an exact point; however, GNIS is not reliable for indicating what that something was. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only newspapers.com result I found was the appointment of a fourth-class postmaster and a couple people with the last name Story. Reywas92^Talk 14:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete So I see the same results in old topos, but in the most modern ones (where things got copied onto the map from GNIS) there is a a notation I've never seen before: a "PO" mark. It's in a box on one and an oval on another. The only way I can interpret this is that whoever put the notation on realized that they were recording a post office and not a town. In any case, this is another which comes from a large scale non-USGS map of the state, which has proven problematic before. I see no evidence of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura K. Ipsen

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

I am confident that Ipsen is a fine person and making a good contribution to digital tech, but this page runs counter to the goals articulated in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Does anyone have better sources to demonstrate more than that she is a competent executive in tech? I suspect that this article was posted while the Ellucian page was built, which page was deleted for covert advertising by MER-C. There is nothing cited that meets the criteria for notability. See WP:BIO and WP:NRVE --Literarytech (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Talk about 'merging' can, of course, still occur. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary electronic music

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

replication of existing content, we already have articles on electronic music, electronic dance music, and 'electronica'.... unnecessary article on a niche term that describes precisely nothing. Acousmana (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's an essay, so there's no point in merging. Electronic music and the other articles the nom points out cover it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Electronica was boldly moved to Contemporary electronic music. I moved it back. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note. If a consensus forms to delete this; please move it to Electronica (music) without leaving a redirect, in order to free up the page history at the title, and then move Electronica (disambiguation) to the base title. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a well-known genre. If the quality of the article or its sourcing is at question, that can be addressed by improving it as the topic itself is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Walter Görlitz: This was the 'electronica' article, until a page move renamed it to the above. Can you give a definition of "contemporary electronic music"? Do you mean in the sense of institutional/academic electroacoustic music, or are you intending it to be an umbrella term for so-called vernacular electronic music? Acousmana (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that some in the genre we call "electronica" prefer "contemporary electronic music", but a change in title is different than a deletion discussion. I'm opposed to deletion of electronica, which is where the AfD template is currently located. @ItsAlwaysLupus: made the move. I don't really understand why though, but this is now a very large mess. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - it's a mess alright, i proposed the deletion before seeing what exactly had happened with page moves/redirects etc., electronica article certainly has issues, needs updating, but agree that deletion is unnecessary.Acousmana (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 17:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article history is quite a mess. I entered this AfD with some skepticism for the "contemporary electronic music" title, but see now that it's just "electronica". I don't think there's a sufficiently clear distinction between "electronica" and "electronic dance music" sufficient to have two articles here, but certainly no need to delete. Neither is quite a genre as much as an umbrella term to make it easy to refer to a bunch of genres. The question is how best to Merge them together, probably under the latter title, with some give/take with electronic music, too. That's best handled on the article talk pages, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- it is complicated slightly by regional differences in the usage history of the word "electronica," before it was adopted by the US record industry in the mid 90s, it was used - primarily in the UK - to describe electronic music that would later be labelled IDM. This was never fleshed out properly in the electronica article but there are sources available hato could be cited. Acousmana (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC) On second thoughts, a redirect to electronic dance music probably the simplest thing at this point. Acousmana (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except no one calls it "electronic dance music". They do call it "contemporary electronic music" though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, so we need usable musicological sources that very clearly outline the differences between electronic music, electronica, electronic dance music, and contemporary electronic music. Fan discourse, unless cited by WP:RS, doesn't solve the problem. Acousmana (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist. Hopefully some more !votes will clear up what to do with the pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Electronica is distinct from electronic music in that the former is a music genre while the latter is a mode of music production. A clear conceptual distinction is that most modern music incorporates electronic music, but that act does not make a piece of music a form of electronica. The current article content needs to be improved, but the underlying concept is notable. Also note that electronica is distinct from EDM in that electronica incorporates non-dance oriented forms. SFB 11:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ili (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Sillyfolkboy - electronica can sometimes mean nearly a wide variety of genres not necessarily made for dance - therefore is distinct from EDMMalmsimp (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 05:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feodor (horse)

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

Not a notable horse. Won one low-stakes race at an unusually-long distance by an unusually large amount. Sources other than [83] are just horse databases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From what I can find on Equibase.com, there were over 4,000 horses foaled the same year as Feodor who have earned more than he has. One big win in an obscure race is not enough to make a horse famous. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, comparing this accomplishment with Secretariat's is misleading, as the distances are much different. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "The Monitor" (PDF). IEEE.org. Retrieved 15 September 2020.

[2] "Introducing Melissa B". Divine Magazine. 2015-08-18. Retrieved 2020-09-15.

[3] "Live the Dream Tour - Advisory Board". www.livethedreamtour.org. Retrieved 2020-09-15.

[4] O'Connor, Daniel (2014-02-28). "FabMe Jewelry's fashion shoot with Melissa B". TCT Magazine. Retrieved 2020-09-15.

[5] "Digitally Independent". prezi.com. Retrieved 2020-09-15.

[6] "iTunesCharts.net: 'Back and Forth' by Melissa B (French Songs iTunes Chart)". www.itunescharts.net. Retrieved 2020-09-15.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]