Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 September	22 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The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) jp×g 01:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BrazyXay

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

Withdraw, it is in the wrong namespace for AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:40, 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 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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Danilchenko

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

No clear indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pileus area index

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

apparently no references to its use by other authors --notifying Aluxosm who commented on this on my user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sheer private neologism with not a single hit in the literature. (On an amused note, the original "Zimbabwean student" managed to successfully morph into a plain "researcher" along the way - congratulations!) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per my comments on the talk page. Mainly, there are no references to this term being used anywhere other than in copies of the article. Aluxosm (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- These are the comments in question:
  This appears to be an unfortunate, and potentially upsetting story.
  After trying find any mention of "Pileus area index" that wasn't taken from this article and coming up empty handed, I looked into the person who apparently coined the term. There was indeed someone called Asher Tarivona Mutsengi who did go to UT Austin, but he was only there for a short time^[1] and there was nothing to suggest that this term made it out of the university. Unfortunately most of the references I found with his name on them were obituaries. Asher died in an farming accident on the 27th July 2009.^[2]^[3]
  Finally I thought about contacting the original author of this article to see if they could be of help before it was deleted. However, looking into their edit history, it's pretty obvious that the creator was Asher himself... Aluxosm (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  I hope you don't mind my copying them here – the reason I'm doing it is that if this AfD results in deletion, the comments will not be available on the talk page and transparency will be lost. Feel free to remove this comment in its entirety if you think I'm out of line here. TompaDompa (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just Like in the Old Country

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Non notable album of non notable band. W 42 20:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. W 42 20:16, 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 Volkov Commander. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volkov Vsevolod Vladyslavovych

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

The redirect to the software was removed, so bringing this to AfD. Other than developing this piece of software, not notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Volkov Commander was good. All we need to do is restore it. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Saxena

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

Promotional. There is no significant coverages to pass WP:GNG. Previously deleted through AfD, I don't see anything changed then. - The9Man ^(Talk) 19:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The subject seems to be notable in Indian media. He's a media person, a local medallist, leader of a nation-scope taekwondo society, and recently a government personnel per [1]. Since WP:GNG clearly states that sources in any language are acceptable, I'm inclined to accept that he is a notable subject there... Besides the sources in the article, see [2] and references therein. Concerning the previous AfD, I believe the foreign language aspect was largely neglected, which is why it was unanimously deleted; this, or the article was very badly written by that time. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that the cited sources, bhadas4media, samachar4media, NewsDog etc are reliable. Hindustan, the only reliable source makes a trivial mention of subject. The position "Senior advisor of Media & Entertainment Skills Council" does not remotely satisfy WP:NPOL. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional bio of non-notable figure. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of any notability; no coverage seen in reliable sources at a level that would be acceptable for GNG Spiderone 09:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person serves as WP:PROMOTION only. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swim to Africa

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

Non notable documentary, with unsubstantiated claims of award. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to verify that claim, or to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insignificant coverage. Azuredivay (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a single source to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable award, even if it were verified Rogermx (talk) 22:13, 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine

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

The article had just gone through an AfD that was closed on Sept 1: "Unanimous agreement that this doesn't belong in mainspace." Unfortunately, as it turned out, the closer was feeling generous and chose 'draftify' rather than plain 'delete' as the outcome. The article creator proceeded to quickly re-submit the article to AfC where, even more unfortunately it got through, as a lot of junk flies through there. G4 was declined on technical grounds since the AfD result was 'draftily' rather than 'delete'. So here we are again. Now, to substance. The page is still a manifest WP:NOTNEWS violation. Nothing really changed since the previous AfD in that regard. The "impeachment" itself was a widely viewed as a political stunt, flashing through the news for a few days and forgotten just as quickly. It is clear that these "articles of impeachment" won't ever even get a committee hearing, let alone a vote of any kind. Since the first AfD the article's creator User:Elijahandskip added a section 'Results' about a subsequently passed House Bill 272 that limits the public officials' powers to change the time and place of the elections. However, there is no mention at all in the source cited [3] mentions nothing at all about this fine "impeachment" effort as having any impact on the passage of this bill, and the attempt to draw such an implication is a pure unadulterated WP:OR. Given how things went down with this page so far, I request that, if this AfD is closed as 'delete' that the title is salted, and that the closing statement specify that User:Elijahandskip must first request and obtain explicit consensus for recreation of this page at WP:DRV before posting it to mainspace again. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like the article title had been moved since Sept 1 and the title is a little different now. Here is a link to the previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is the second AfD the nomination should reflect that fact with the correct templates. Lightburst (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree, but I am not sure how to proceed. I only realized that the title of the article changed slightly from the first AfD after Twinkle finished processing the AfD nomination and has created all the templates. I admit I'm not quite sure what to do now ... Nsk92 (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Delete into the pages for the 4 state reps who brought this. There are three brief non-local sources that covered it over a period of a couple of days, but IMO it still falls on the wrong side of notability, and it's clearly not going to get any more coverage. I think where it's really of use is on their pages; this is about them, not about DeWine. I seriously am not even sure it needs to be linked to from DeWine's. It was just a silly political ploy by a few barely notable politicians. —valereee (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's already a significant amount of info about the "impeachment" effort in the articles of about all sponsors of this effort, John Becker (politician), Candice Keller, Nino Vitale, and Paul Zeltwanger. There's already more than enough info about it there and no extra merging is needed. I would object strongly to any closing outcome for this AfD other than 'delete', given its prior hisory. Leaving the page in mainspace to wait for merging would leave the situation open to endless arguments, manipulation and delays. The page's creator, User:Elijahandskip has shown extraordinary persistence and tenacity in bringing this page back. It's not a good idea to tempt fate further here. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I know, I was the one who updated those four articles. I was trying to be kind to the article creator, who I know worked hard on this, but given their vote below to redraftify, I'm starting to lose patience. Elijahandskip, I know you really thought this was an important article -- maybe it's even what brought you back to Wikipedia, and we do want you here. But this is just nowhere near as important as you thought it was. You've now moved it from draft too soon, nominated it at ITN, and we draftified a couple weeks ago to see if it would become important, you again recreated it from draft too quickly. Now you want us to draftify it again. If this becomes important -- if some book on Ohio politics mentions it -- you can refund. Changing my !vote to delete. —valereee (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could do with a bit less editorializing in the nomination statement, and a bit more candor. Of the 12 expressed views in the first AfD, 5 were for draftification, and only 3 for deletion. A closer who closed that AfD as delete would have been swiftly overturned at DRV. Indeed it could not have been properly closed in any other way. The close was neither "generous" nor "unfortunate". None of which settles whether this now belongs in mainspace, of course. I am still considering that, but leaning towards keeping it there. I declined the G4 because it did not fit. G4 is for recreations of previously deleted content (deleted by discussion). This simply wasn't previously deleted. That isn't merely "technical" --- CSDs may only be used when they clearly fit the written criteria, if there is doubt, a discussion is needed. And here we are to discuss. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer of the first AfD stated, "Unanimous agreement that this doesn't belong in mainspace." I believe that people who suggested draftification were in fact feeling generous and wanted to give the page's creator an opportunity to wait a few months to see if the topic might become notable then. I don't think anyone really envisioned the article being re-created just a couple of weeks later, in essentially the same form, with a flimsy extra 'Results' section trying to draw a purely WP:OR connection to the subject of the page. I don't have a problem with G4 being declined, but I do have a problem with the continued existence of this page in mainspace. Nsk92 (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment related too original deletion reason: Earlier it was stated that House Bill 272 has no connection to the impeachment articles. Found this: [4] Elijahandskip (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. I admit, that is definitely something. Still it looks like at the most the impeachment effort was a very short term political manuever on the part of some ultra-conservative members of the Ohio House of Represenatives upset with the governor that could have helped dislodge and move a long some bills that were introduced earlier. It's more interesting than I thought but it's still not worthy of an article about the impeachment itself as that isn't going anywhere. Nsk92 (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still argue that it's of only local interest. Even that article calls the whole thing inside baseball. It's just...meh. I live in Ohio. Other than this article I've barely heard about this. It might be something being discussed in American Government classes in Ohio high schools, but that's about it. If some textbook covers it in a few years we can refund. —valereee (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify {Creator's vote}. I honestly vote Keep as the articles of impeachment led to new laws (Some about the impeachment articles). I do admit I moved it from the original draftify back to an article too quickly. I should have added more about the connection before moving it back. {See "Comment related too original deletion reason" above}. Article Info Change is also an option. Maybe changing the overall topic from focusing on the impeachment articles to focusing on the changes that happened. {In general, the impeachment articles were a political stunt, but the articles (The contents of them) caused new laws which basically prevents an Ohio Governor from doing a "Mass shutdown" and other things that happened during the COVID issues.} Elijahandskip (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elijahandskip, if you think you can write that article, why not just write that article? But I have to say, if you move it to article space too fast, and we have to go through this again, it's going to be approaching disruptive editing. I'd highly recommend getting someone who has created multiple well-referenced articles to look it over first. —valereee (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mike DeWine#Impeachment Articles-- The whole article can be summarised in three sentences. The target already has two. Remove the rest and add the third there. The alternative title, under which this article was first created, already redirects to the same article. BTW, "The article creator proceeded to quickly re-submit the article to AfC where, even more unfortunately it got through, as a lot of junk flies through there." Eloquent but untrue. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, any redirect would be the same as the article during the first AFD. The point of the article now is how the impeachment articles were a political stunt that started a bunch of new laws. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4. Content being draftified instead of completely deleted does not justify rapid recreation. This is just a couple idiot legislators whining like babies that they have to wear a mask and – gasp! – act with regard for other humans. Per Usedtobecool, this complaint can be summarized in a couple sentences, if at all. Title is not a likely search term. Reywas92^Talk 03:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be Speedy delete. G4 was declined on technical grounds since the AfD result was 'draftily' rather than 'delete'. The AFD (second) reason even stated that. Elijahandskip (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification does not impose any particular time delay. Rather, it is intended for the text to remain in draft until the issues are fixed. If that can be done in a day or two, fine; if it takes months, also fine. The question here is whether the changes sufficed to fix the prior issues and demonstrate the notability of the topic, or not. If not, this does not currently belong in mainspace. If it is notable, then it does.and the G4 decline (by me) was not merely technical, it was declined because there was no previous AfD (or XfD) deletion, which is the basis of a G4 speedy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just thinking that making the title ‘salted’ is slightly too far. I am going to begin working on that other article talked about above. Possibly salting the title would prevent that. Just a though, so maybe (if deleted) don’t salt title. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As more time has passed this appears to have been a stunt. I thought so at the time but it was breaking news so I voted Draftify just in case it developed. It didn't. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mike DeWine. ~~If it isn't on his page already,~~ it deserves a sentence or two. In the case that that page is kept, rename to Impeachment effort against Mike DeWine or something similar. KidAd talk 23:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support a rename. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this has not risen to the level of a notable event worth having a seperate article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: Non-notable political stunt that will not be WP:LASTING. // Timothy :: talk 07:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I mean it did change history for Ohio Governors. As stated earlier, the articles are a political stunt, but 10 new bills came out of the 10 "fake articles of impeachment". Basically, everything they were going to impeach him on is a NEW law. An Ohio Governor can't do anything that happened back in March (With the shutdowns). Elijahandskip (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not American but it looks like a shallow political stunt, with little lasting value and I don't see it as a search term as for most readers, its byzantine. scope_creep^Talk 11:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to list of dumb political stunts if we ever have such an awful thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to majortiy of Delete votes:Most of you are using the reason that it was a "political stunt that had no lasting impact". I have stated multiple times (People don't seem to read or comment on the point much), but the articles of impeachment were a political stunt, HOWEVER, the Ohio Congress passed new laws that were not considered before they "political stunt". An Ohio Governor no longer can do a shutdown {Like what happened with the March Covid Shutdown}. If you think about it, the article needs to be retuned to point that fact out, instead of being a article about the "Impeachment articles". Elijahandskip (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Badalotti

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No effective references. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly self promotional. Property developer profile is not encylopedic. Teraplane (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. Article is an orphan. Sleako (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no coverage for the subject. Present in the article are four references. One is a blog which meets WP:NOT as being self-published. One is announcement, one is a subscription [5] which expressly forbidden as an advert per Wikipedia Terms of Use and the other one is an a very short profile style interview, self-published on his own site, again failing WP:NOT. The references are entirely unsuitable for a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 07:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not inherited from the company, article has serious PROMO issues. 1292simon (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No where near enough RS to make this a notable subject. 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preksha Mehta

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

No major works to pass WP:NACTOR and no significant coverage to pass WP:GNG - The9Man ^(Talk) 19:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of any notability Spiderone 09:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 14:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monuran trackway

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

Lacks notability; lacks reliable sources Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a stub created by a user no longer active at Wikipedia. It is nothing but a description and link to a single image allegedly from the Library of Congress. The actual image link appears to be to a blog. I can find no mention of "Monuran trackway" at Google Scholar, nor does "Monuran" "Robledos" bring up anything (the trackway is claimed to be in the Robledos Mountains.) I'd propose a merge with Monura, but nothing in this stub is properly sourced, so deleting altogether seems in order. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete This appears to be an article on a single specimen with one extremely marginal reference. I'd be hard-pressed to find that notable even for something prominent, but for an extinct order about which we record nothing but a few sentences, I'm just not seeing it. Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may be referring to this specimen. The article name appears to be rather generic, but the context seems to be the same, with the same location and ichnofossil name. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems the right place for this information, if properly sourced.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem with this isn't sourcing: it's that there's no sign of significant notability. People write papers about single or small groups of specimens all the time; nothing wrong with that, but this is the bread and butter of scholarly publishing. If it were a case of "everyone in the field knows about these fossil tracks," that would go some way towards making this a notable thing. I've looked at the paper presented here, and it doesn't appear to mention this particular specimen; based on another paper I saw, I'm inclined to view the article under discussion as a piece of original research interpreting this track as being that of a creature in the order in question. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete As it currently stands, its lacks notability. Also the designation, "Monuran trackway," is informal, generic, and apparently was created by the article's originator as it does not apply to either a specific locality or specimen of note. If this trace fossil is included in Wikipedia, it should be either in an article under its scientific name, "Tonganoxichnus" or possibly become part of Prehistoric Trackways National Monument. Paul H. (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Tonganoxichnus. Abyssal (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think there is a good merge/redirect target, the article sourcing is poor, and notability is questionable. // Timothy :: talk 07:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Watkins (politician)

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, doesn't appear to have ever held elective office. P-K3 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. P-K3 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsuccessful runs for election do not make someone notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have long held that defeated candidates for the US house of representatives are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — but this features neither any credible evidence that he has preexisting notability for other reasons besides being a candidate, nor the range and depth of coverage it would take to make his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. Just because a candidate has some campaign coverage in the local media, where every candidate is simply expected to have campaign coverage because that's the local media's job, does not automatically hand every candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass any SNGs — a candidate's coverage needs to nationalize, in some way that would get him over the ten year test for enduring significance, before the existence of campaign coverage is enough to get him a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates usually don't get articles. Watkins is no exception. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 17:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chung Hwa School Kiudang

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

This school doesn't seem notable since the article doesn't site any references and I was unable to find multiple in-depth reliable sources about it in a BEFORE that would help it pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:57, 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 Brunei-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a non-notable primary school; fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG Spiderone 18:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searched for coverage in English and Chinese, but all I found was materials published by the schol (i.e. not independent), or passing mentions of the school in captions. Fails WP:SCHOOL. --Dps04 (talk) 09:51, 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esha Noor

(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) 08:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is alright i did add the sources to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs)

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

Hip and trendinginsocial are reliable sources i remember that various actors articles also have these sources in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs)

No. They're not RS. --Saqib (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you tell me which are reliable sources i mean everyone seems to use the one's i added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet guidelines. It is critical that we follow strict sourcing and conservatively follow guidelines regarding BLPs. // Timothy :: talk 07:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreliable sources. Can't find any significant coverage. - hako9 (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moritz Resl

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

NARTIST and GNG fail. There are a few slim articles but most sourcing is primary. A search found little else. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's canvassing to ask the editor who accepted the article at AfC, Olaf Kosinsky what their thoughts are, since AfC is primarily concerned with whether the article would survive an AfD nomination. Vexations (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. [6] (profile in an exhibition catalogue) is halfway decent, but I couldn't find anything else. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet guidelines. It is important that we follow strict sourcing and conservatively follow guidelines regarding BLPs. // Timothy :: talk 07:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three-stage-to-orbit

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

This article is nothing but WP:DICDEF. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge As shown in 'see also', there are related articles Single-stage-to-orbit and Two-stage-to-orbit. These are not without their own issues but they have seemingly useful content, and it would be strange to delete this one while leaving the others. Should the three articles be merged into a single article called Rocket Stages or such-like? asnac (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is nothing like a dictionary definition. WP:DICDEF explains the difference and the nomination misrepresents this. It's the usual "perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written". The actual policies which apply here include WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing particularly notable about three stages. Or four stages, or two stages for that matter. The relevant concept is that of a multistage rocket, and there is already a decent article about it. Perhaps a list of three-stage rockets would instead be meaningful? Note that this reasoning doesn't apply to single-stage-to-orbit. That's a different concept, not covered in multistage rocket, and quite notable on its own. One can see that by the much better state of the article. Tercer (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article might be better if it were titled something like List of three-stage rockets. XOR'easter (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article does not seem like a dictionary entry to me. I don't see that being a reason for deletion if more sources could be added to the page.★Trekker (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The WP:DICTDEF argument definitly does not fly here. If someone wants to propose another WP:DEL-REASON, I'd be happy to consider it. ~Kvng (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2006 CPPCC Plenary Session

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

Unsourced article. Natadmim (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - no valid deletion rationale, there is no requirement to delete unsourced articles (except WP:BLP). --Soman (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Soman, WP:V requires removal of unsourced contested content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. This is a consultative body, not a legislature, so I don’t think individual sessions are notable. Zh.wiki does not have individual articles for individual sessions. Mccapra (talk) 18:39, 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 18:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Thomson (writer)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. From the sources provided two are not reliable (blogspot), two are not independent from the subject (Concordant Publishing), and one is from an offline printed source which appears to be a trivial mention. I did not find further coverage doing a Google search. Article was prodded in June 2009. Alan Islas (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thomson was an editor and occasional contributor for a minor religious publication, apparently without any specific credentials. Does not seem to be meet criteria for notability. If the same benchmark were used consistently, we would need many thousands of new articles for contributors to thousands of periodicals.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:32, 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 Frequency selective surface. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloch wave – MoM method

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

A couple of weeks ago, we noticed the term "Bloch wave" is not notable and not used by any reliable sources in reference to Bloch's theorem (see talk page there), we have edited that article to remove references to Bloch wave and moved it to "Bloch's theorem". After noticing this, this article is curious. I have personally visited each of the IEEE articles and the Phys. Rev. B article as well as gained access to the book by Harrington and have verified that not one of them mentions the term "Bloch wave" (nor "MoM method" or even "Bloch" - no reference to the person or theorem) I believe the literature cited is discussing the Method of Moments and there is already an article Boundary element method that covers the term "Method of Moments" as it applies to electromagnetics. The article has was started by @IClausius, who has only contributed to this article and not since 2011, and has been updated mostly by IP users. The users likely did not know of the other article. Some work will need to be done seeing what information should be merged into Boundary element method, but it is obvious this article should not exist, for many reasons: It lacks notability as a term and it lacks any citations on the actual topic it claims to be discussing. I am very confused how "Bloch wave" became so prolific on Wikipedia when academia does not support the term. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Forbes72, Flyredeagle, Headbomb, Myxomatosis57, Daviddwd, Keith D, Mark viking, and Nicoguaro: Ping recent editors from Bloch theorem, Bloch wave – MoM method, and Boundary element method. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frequency selective surface. The article Frequency selective surface is by the same editor,(seems that IClausius (talk · contribs) Scottcr1 (talk · contribs) and EM-Editor (talk · contribs) are also the same person) and there's significant overlap in the equations there. As far as I can tell, the "Bloch wave – MoM method" is just this editor's idiosyncratic name for a particular way of applying the Boundary element method to the study of Frequency selective surfaces. The fact that this was all built by a single editor with a poor understanding [7] of how Wikipedia works makes this a bit difficult to evaluate. I don't think this topic is notable enough for a standalone article, but some of the concepts brought up seem to be worth including in the discussion of frequency selective surfaces. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 23:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I must admit that I didn't really dig into or give thought to the topic while technically editing it back in May. The method discussed here appears to be spectral-domain method of moments with periodic boundary conditions for PEC scatterers; I don't really think that this very specific formulation for periodic media deserves its own article (but MoM, as a separate article from BEM, does, in my opinion). Roger F. Harrington's and Rumsey's articles were cited to be "complementary" to the theory behind the formulation, I believe. I've seldom seen the term "bloch wave" in photonic crystal/periodic media literature; in this case, the full title appears to be the original contributor's own construct, failing WP:NEO. Also it should be noted that some of the content of this article is present on frequency selective surface article (added by the same IP user). The article under this name should be deleted in this case. It would be appropriate to salvage content for FSS article within the limits of WP:DUE. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are 6 (of many) online references for the term "Bloch wave":

1. http://lampx.tugraz.at/~hadley/ss1/bloch/blochwave.php

2. https://safeswisscloud.com/en/blog/1929-bloch-wave-electron-waves-crystal/

3. http://sites.science.oregonstate.edu/~roundyd/COURSES/ph366/bloch-shooting.html

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KN5FIaaZao

5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02790171

6. https://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/bloch-wave-204

Any 3-dimensional periodic medium will exhibit Bloch waves, whether it's in connection with electrons in semiconductors or with photons in periodic nanostructures.

The Harrington and Rumsey references relate to the concept of reaction, which is central to ALL (spatial and spectral domain) moment methods and is separate from the Bloch wave formulation. In fact, it was the bringing together of these two concepts (MoM and Bloch waves) that makes this method unique and computationally efficient - vastly more efficient than the plane wave expansion method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_wave_expansion_method

This article should NOT be merged with the Frequency selective surface article because it is a fundamentally different formulation, unique to triply-periodic structures in 3D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.136.117 (talk)

Note: Previous comment left by IP user 172.114.136.117. No one said the internet does not mention "Bloch wave", but rather that the scientific literature does not mention it. See WP:Notability, WP:NEO, WP:DUE. The current page should be deleted as per Wikipedia policy; if you do not believe it should be merged into Frequency selective surface, please provide an alternative. It is standard practice to begin a new section in the article and merge the contents in there, it would not be ambiguous and could clearly state any differences with the rest of material in the Frequency selective surface article. Also, if you have knowledge on the subject, would you mind providing even a single reference for this method that brings together "Bloch waves" and the MoM method? If the article contained any of those, I would not have nominated it here. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Springer reference is not considered scientific literature? Well, here's more:

1. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.106853

2. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsta.2019.0101

3. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09500340.2017.1384513

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.136.117 (talk)

Yes, it appears to be scientific literature, and that is fine, but none of these sources discuss the MoM (or at least they never mention MoM or method of moments) and so everything provided is totally irrelevant to this discussion. When I said scientific literature, to be clear, I was talking about textbooks. There are many papers by many scientists and they can use whatever words they want. Wikipedia, though, uses the language that is considered standard and that generally requires using the language of standard textbooks. Sorry for the confusion. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the actual name of this specific method is? We can move the page to whatever its standard name is given there are enough (quality) references to ensure its notability. Also just so you know, Wikipedia is not a textbook and it should not be relied upon for education, especially advanced education; it provides only an encyclopedic overview of notable topics. Footlessmouse (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in this case is not about (or should not be about) the term "bloch wave". As far as I understand, this particular formulation of spectral-domain MoM under this name hasn't been in included in the scientific discourse (WP:NOTNEO). Unless this specific formulation of the spectral method is covered by multiple independent sources (e.g. subsequent review articles or further independent research), it shouldn't have its own article per WP:OR and WP:GNG. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason why the term "Bloch wave - MoM" does not appear in the literature, including in either of the two IEEE Aerospace Conf. papers cited in the article. When the research was done for those two papers, and even up to (and several years past) the publication of the two papers, the author (having a background in optics) was not yet aware of the concept of Bloch waves from semiconductor theory. So back in the nineties, the author (independent of Felix Bloch) came up with the expansion himself, and only later realized (unfortunately, after publication) that Bloch had already discovered the exact same series expansion over half a century earlier, in connection with solutions to Schrodinger's equation in periodic crystals. So, out of deference to Felix Bloch, the name of the method was changed from "Spectral Domain - MoM" to "Bloch Wave - MoM." The author felt then (and still does) that it is correct to credit Bloch with the periodic field expansion that has been known under his name (in the semiconductor world) for decades. So whether it's a periodic electron wave function in a semiconductor or a periodic optical wave in a photonic crystal, it's the exact same mathematics in both cases, and as a result the Bloch name can rightly be applied to both applications.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.136.117 (talk) 18:21, 2020 September 14 (UTC)

IP user, we are not here to debate which name has the strongest justification. Wikipedia policy (see WP:COMMONNAME) "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". As Myxomatosis57 has said, it is strictly against the rules to use titles that do not appear in reliable sources. You're free to think the terminology in the established literature is misguided, but Wikipedia is not the place to correct the record. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 23:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you appear to be a subject matter expert. It's ok for you to help out in your area of expertise, and I'll take your signature here [8] to be evidence that you're acting in good faith, but per WP:SELFCITE, it would be better if you could be more clear about your connection to the subject matter and which contributions are yours.

\langle

Forbes₇₂ | Talk

\rangle

00:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, maybe the best thing is to just merge it with the Frequency selective surface page.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(OP) Merge into Frequency selective surface page. I believe everyone is on board with that at this point, there have been no further objections. The on IP user who did object was convinced on policy grounds that merging is the best option here. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Benidickson Tricolour Award

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

0 Delete. The page seems to lack all notability. Apart from sources tied closely to the university, there are no other news articles denoting this as a notable award. I suggest maybe merging a brief summary of the existence of the award to the page for Agnes Benidickson. User:R.schneider101 20:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every award that exists is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because its own self-published content about itself offers technical verification of its existence — the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about the award in media independent of itself, and that's lacking. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Northcott

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

Advertorially-tinged WP:BLP of an actor and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing our notability standards for either actors or filmmakers. The notability claim as an actor is that roles were had, not that he achieved anything noteworthy for or with any of them, and the notability claim as a filmmaker is that his first short film was an "official selection" of minor film festivals far below the Cannes-Berlin-TIFF tier -- and virtually all of it is referenced to primary sources and blogs that aren't support for notability. The only source here that actually comes from real media (#6, De Standaard) is tangentially verifying a fact about an advertising campaign, while not mentioning Ryan Northcott's name at all in conjunction with it, and thus isn't support for his notability either. As well, I strongly suspect a direct conflict of interest, as over five years of contributing to Wikipedia the creator has never made a single edit not directly related to Ryan Northcott. (And further, the creator recently removed advert and COI tags from the article, without actually addressing the substance of the issues.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because their work exists -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced to proper reliable source coverage about him in real media. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 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 18:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PaKING

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The article for the artist has already been deleted at AfD after being deemed non-notable, and I tried PRODding this as a result, but the SPA who created the articles related to this artist removed the PROD without explanation or comment. The three sources from The News are all by the same author and are individual reviews of three of the four songs, so spreading out the review of the EP's tracks over three articles doesn't count as "multiple sources". The articles also do not corroborate much of the promotional peacock wording or the supposed facts stated in the article, e.g. that Myca C and Nived feature on the title track or that the spoken introduction was written by the artist's brother. No evidence of charting of radio play. Richard3120 (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated by the nominator, the musician was already deemed non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osama Com Laude so this album is non-notable too. In fact it can now be speedy deleted per WP:A9. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:56, 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 18:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meharbaani

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

Non notable film, tagged since 2011 for notability. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search except film database sites and videos. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 18:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM ~ Amkgp 💬 15:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Huszar

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

Biography of a businessman who fails WP:GNG. Sources are all passing mentions. A WP:BEFORE search does not turn up anything better. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Ansari

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

Not notable - sources say he managed a family member's campaign, which does not meet WP:NPOL, nor is there evidence of meeting WP:GNG as sources are brief mentions only. PROD was removed by article creator. Melcous (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL -- Padavalam🌂 ► 18:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, until January of this year the article implied in its phrasing that he was an actual MLA, which would be why it flew under the radar — it didn't literally say that outright, but it implied it in the way his relationship to the constituency of Mau was phrased. But indeed, there's no evidence whatsoever that he ever has been an MLA, and all the sources actually say is that he was a campaign manager for his father (the actual MLA). But notability is not inherited, so he isn't entitled to have an article just because his father has one, and being campaign manager is not a notability-clinching claim of significance. This is exactly why I always say that even with the "inherent" notability granted to MLAs, we still require at least one reliable source to properly verify that they actually hold the claimed office. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of any notability; clear NPOL and GNG fail here Spiderone 09:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morteza Javidi

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

Was deprodded with the rationale that he is a general. However, while the infobox states that he is a general, none of the sources I read refer to him as such, instead using the terms "commander" and "martyr". Additionally, he commanded a battalion, which usually has, at best a colonel, but usually a Lt. Colonel or even Major as its commanding officer, being a unit of 1000 or less men. Without out, he does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER, as all the press comes from a single event, which would be WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My rationale for passing this at NPP was that the subject appeared likely to pass GNG and was the subject of a book and a film. That said, the article is pretty weak. Mccapra (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 7 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 14:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails V, NSOLDIER and GNG. I know this is a real person, but most of what is "known" about him is a minor martyr propaganda myth.[9]. Iranian state media is not WP:IS and other RS would be hard to find, if they even exist. // Timothy :: talk 08:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 6). (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Older and Far Away

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

Redirect to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 6). Article consists of nothing but plot summary. Tagged for notability for three years now without evidence of improvement (and for needing citations for nine). DonIago (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, it was reviewed retrospectively in at least two places ([10], [11]), and was also discussed in [12]. But wouldn't an RfC or something on the vast number of probably non-notable TV eps we currently have articles for (see List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes and List of How I Met Your Mother episodes for just a taste) be worthwhile, instead of doing them one by one? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably, though I don't have the bandwidth to manage such an undertaking. DonIago (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant episode list. There does not seem to be enough critical commentary on the episode to require an article. TTN (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: To be honest, I don't even see why this needed a prod or an AfD. Simply redirecting it would have been completely justified. Dark knight 2149 07:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried a PROD first. An IP opposed it. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purser, California

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

This apparently was a ranch where there was a 4th class post office, possibly on the NCO Railway line. One gathers that when Wendel became a major spot on the line it made sense to move the post office there. At any rate, every reference I've found says either "ranch" or "post office". Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a former community; Wikipedia is a gazetteer about these. If the nominator disputes info stated in article, open discussion at its Talk page, and/or tag article for more sources. --Doncram (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it was a real community? Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:IINFO, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and WP:GEOLAND. KidAd talk 00:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND, as there's no evidence there was ever an actual, legally recognized community here. GNIS doesn't even have an entry for this. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not in GNIS means it never appeared on any map. I can't find any claim that it was ever a community. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epaar Xipaar

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

Poorly referenced stub about a non-notable film, with no RS mentions found; fails WP:GNG / WP:NFILM. Previous PROD was removed by creating editor without leaving a comment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 18:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Nika2020 (talk) 20:51, 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 Cherry Hill, New Jersey. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Hill Inn

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

Article does not meet GNG or NBUILD. BEFORE in newspapers.com showed nothing that shows notability. Two sources in the article are a brief mention in a blog post and a brief mention in a PDF of unknown origin on township website. // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Cherry Hill, New Jersey - The name of the inn was one of a string of entities in the area that used the name "Cherry Hill", which that led to the renaming in 1961 of Delaware Township to Cherry Hill.

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mansoor Ansari

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

BLP article does not meet GNG or BASIC. // Timothy :: talk 13:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only notable thing is family, and even then, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 14:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page Mansoor Ansari is of genuine personality and he is very notable man in Easter Uttar Pradesh India. There are many sources and references to prove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonKiller0786 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If these sources exist, would you please provide them? Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6]

These are some references that Mansoor Ansari is a a notable personality from eastern Uttar Pradesh and there should be wikipedia page on him so that more information can be added about him in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonKiller0786 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mansoor Ansari on News 18 Published June 2019
^ Mansoor Ansari on The Hindu
^ The Outlook India reported Mansoor Ansari
^ Mansoor Ansari on the Rediff.com
^ Scrool.in reported on Mansoor Ansari
^ Times of India

Delete I don't see WP:SIGCOV at all. Govvy (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of a number of articles about members of the same family created by this editor raising possible WP:COI concerns, there is no evidence of WP:GNG, the claims to notability are either about the family and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, or about his acquittal for a criminal charge which would seem to be WP:BLP1E. Melcous (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL -- Padavalam🌂 ► 18:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xorapat

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

Article does not meet GNG or NTELEVISION. BEFORE showed nothing that indicates notability and sources in the article are from a blog and the series homepage. // Timothy :: talk 13:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. --Spasemunki (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of any notability; seemingly no coverage whatsoever Spiderone 09:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Craven LMS High School, Kollam

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

Secondary school article does not meet GNG or NORG. BEFORE showed nothing that indicates it meets GNG or NORG. Souces in article are a brief mention and a database site entry. // Timothy :: talk 13:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 13:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass; not notable by its affiliation with Church of South India either Spiderone 14:02, 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 delete. Article speedy deleted by DGG per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One Day Agency

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

obvious PR spam about a non notable agency, only minor mentions in hyper local papers. Praxidicae (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This is not encyclopedic and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. This is a subtle promotional article. I can’t see in-depth significant coverage anywhere either. Celestina007 (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some mentions of the founder here and there (but not even the agency). Citations that include mentions of the agency don't appear to be reliable. --Infogapp1 (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and is promotional Spiderone 15:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy delete -- which I'm doing now. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blame My Youth

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

Non-notable band, the only half-way reasonable citation for which is a local blog. Tagishsimon (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON The project just started this year. Since Blink-182 also has a song called "Blame My Youth", most of the Google search results are about the song instead of the band. The only results about the band are press releases. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON with only one single released which has no claim of charting, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The project has gotten some buzz for inclusion in the new Bill & Ted movie, and some introductory announcements like this: [13], but not yet enough coverage to reach WP's notability standards. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hansa Pit

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

A mine. The mine itself does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. Information about the discovery of Europasaurus is already in that article and in Langenberg (Bad Harzburg). // Timothy :: talk 08:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither NGEO nor GNG were researchable to me so that it fit the context. What do these two mean?

Other than that, it's in the nature of being a former local German mining pit that was abandoned in 1960 that it's not internationally documented. This is the reason why local literature was included instead, additional links (in German) can be transfered as well, along with a translation of the most significant parts. Nin-TD (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nin-TD, I linked the above guidelines for you. Basically you need multiple, independent, secondary sources that cover the subject directly and in depth that demonstrate why this is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT is an important point to consider also, it states, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." It's possible more of this information could be merged into Langenberg (Bad Harzburg) if there is a consensus for the merge; WP:NOTEVERYTHING would be a factor in this, "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Hope this helps. // Timothy :: talk 09:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, TimothyBlue. I have begun to add secondary sources that are in part translated to English (at least where it's appropriate; the literature reference is over a page long). It's going to take a while as it's a gradual process, but the article is going to be reworked in order to be encyclopedic. Also, I think it's useful to keep the article since it's an own entity and relevant in the context of local history and economy. Nin-TD (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nin-TD, You're very welcome. Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 02:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Hi @Shellwood:, how would I go about adding this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology AfD alerts? I added the project tag to the article talk page, but it's not appearing (might just be lag), so I wanted to check. Hope your well. // Timothy :: talk 09:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: Hello, I don't think there is a section dedicated to AfD-listed articles in WPGeology, at least not that Im aware of. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shellwood, its under Article alerts and is from {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Article alerts}} that is maintained by a bot. (Added comment, just noticed the bot says it updates daily.) Thanks, hope all is well. // Timothy :: talk 15:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reasonably well documented former mine. No convincing reason not to have sourced articles on local industrial heritage has been given. If information is better presented in a different article by merging, that can be done without AFD (but in the present case I think a stand-alone article is more appropriate). —Kusma (t·c) 09:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this ends up merged, Göttingerode is also a target worth considering. —Kusma (t·c) 09:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I'm basing the article not meeting GNG on: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ... If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.
Keep, former mines are notable, especially those with paleontological finds. Article is sufficiently sourced and exists on the German Wikipedia without problems. Tisquesusa (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Europasaurus was discovered in Kalksteinbruch Langenberg [de], which is a limestone quarry, the two workings have separate articles on the German wikipedia, but appear to be closely interlinked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have the following points in favor of the delete:

As indicated above, the Europasaurus discovery took place in another mine on the same hill, so it is not related to this mine.
Microfossils are common and ordinary and could be expected to be found in mines. The source for this is a database style entry and only 6 words are used in the article on the subject of fossils. If its the reason for notability, much more would be written.

The neither of the above establishes notability.

Regarding sources:

Hansa iron mine at Fossilworks.org: as noted above is a basic database style entry.
Information page in woick-wandern.de: is a brief mention, with nothing that would indicate notability.
Reference 3: Alfred Breustedt: Eisenerzgrube Hansa (Hansa iron ore pit). In: 950 Jahre Harlingerode, 2003, p. 83f: is actually about the Hermann deposit in another mine. This is clear from the article.
Reference 4: Alfred Breustedt: Eisenerzgrube Hansa (Hansa iron ore pit). In: 950 Jahre Harlingerode, 2003, p. 84: is the same source as Ref 3, and is only a brief mention about the opening and closing of the mine in the 19th century.

The article has not established why it's "worthy of note" and does not meet GNG or NGEO requirement for significant coverage directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a mine is not a reason for deletion as we have articles about lots of mines. The German language article is even more developed and looks fine. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having "articles about lots of mines" is not an excuse to have an article on every mine. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article. None of the sources here or in the German article come anywhere close to establishing notability as has been demonstrated above. // Timothy :: talk 12:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes" and so the existence of lots of other articles about mines demonstrates that the nature of the topic is not a reason to delete. The existence of a respectable article in the German-language Wikipedia is likewise a valid comparison. It's common sense and the nomination fails to provide a sensible alternative. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The full sentence is, "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". "When used correctly" is a critical part of this. Later in the essay it goes on to give an example of how it is misused, which is how you are using it and it goes on, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". This is the reason as I stated it is not a reason to keep an article.

The reason this is up for deletion has nothing to do with it being a mine. It is up for deletion because there are not reliable sources showing its notability. There are not sources that provide SIGCOV to meet either GNG or NGEO guidelines. The references above do not demonstrate notability, the references in the article do not demonstrate notability, and the references in German Wikipedia do not demonstrate notability.

I'm sure there are lots of notable mines, this is not one of them. // Timothy :: talk 23:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the nomination is "A mine" as if that's some kind of argument. Pointing to lots of articles about mines refutes it. For example, we even have a list of mines in Germany which contains examples such as the Luisenthal Mine or Glasebach Pit. The article in question is not signficantly worse than those and it's arguably better and so there's no case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a mine, it's not a pit, just an ordinary traditional non-notable mine that does not have SIGCOV to meet either GNG or NGEO guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 23:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Microfossils are common and ordinary and could be expected to be found in mines." this was your statement. Clearly you did not bother to actually look at the source, because since when are shark teeth "microfossils"? If a foram or even some piece of ammonite would have been found there, you'd have a point, but shark teeth that were notable enough to publish about are not "microfossils", can we agree on this? And are you going to push this same silly deletion proposal on the German language Wikipedia? Tisquesusa (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tisquesusa, you state "Clearly you did not bother to actually look at the source" I did look at the source, the one used as a reference states "Size class: microfossils". Did you read the source? Here it is for easy reference.

So can we agree they are microfossils since the source says they are microfossils?

They did not find sharks teeth, they found microfossils from sharks teeth. // Timothy :: talk 23:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"microfossils" according to Fossilworks are used to describe the size of the fossils, or as the original source for their inclusion in their database says Dimension: 2,5 mm in height.^[1] At Micropaleontology#Microfossils you can read "Microfossils are fossils that are generally between 0.001mm and 1 mm in size,[1] the study of which requires the use of light or electron microscopy. Fossils which can be studied with the naked eye or low-powered magnification, such as a hand lens, are referred to as macrofossils." So according to our own Wikipedia, the fossils found in Hansa would not be classified as "microfossils", even though Fossilworks does classify them as such. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tisquesusa, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Fossilworks is a reliable source, but the database entry does not establish notability. They are microfossils, they are common and do not establish notability. // Timothy :: talk 00:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's all ok, boomer. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:43, 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 18:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L. Murugan

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for holding middle management roles in political parties' internal org charts — the minimum bar for guaranteed inclusion at WP:NPOL is holding a notable public-facing political office, not being an apparatchik. But with just five footnotes of which one is a candidate profile in a political directory in which every candidate has a profile and the other four are all just redundant reverification of the simple fact of his selection for the role itself, and no sustained coverage being shown about his actual work in the role, this is not referenced remotely close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of any notability; doesn't meet our criteria for politicians Spiderone 09:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Simpson (actor)

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

No references for this article on an actor, and I can't find anything to add. Tacyarg (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources in the article and nothing to suggest notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dale

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

A prolific musician, but I can't find anything that would pass WP:NMUSICIAN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to an article such as Tank (band). --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:01, 7 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 16:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 09:16, 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. MBisanz ^talk 14:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sak Faslia

AfDs for this article:

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

An article created by a blocked sockpuppet. A Google search shows that its subject has received absolutely no coverage in English-language sources. The article currently references message boards and Youtube videos. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this book is cited in the article, is it WP:RS? (t · c) buidhe 08:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: To answer your question: probably not. It has a Worldcat entry but no publisher is listed. [14] The author doesn't have any other works attributed to him. [15] This article describes him as an author rather than as a scholar or journalist. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no coverage in reliable sources has been shown to exist. (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A methodological and historiographical comment: The keep/delete dichotomy in the application of WP:GNG on biographical articles and its occupational variants covers a lot of cases, but leaves out figures from sub-communities, which for gegraphical and historical reasons are underrepresented in bibliography which is available to internet users. Sak Faslia/Fazlija/Fazlia was an important military figure in a small region of Kosovo, Rugova. He was very active in the Kachak rebellion and Neutral Zone of Junik in the early 1920s. In WWII, he was anti-Chetnik, anti-Italian but more or less accepted German rule in the region and later became increasingly anti-Partisan. After 1943, he may have been given the option to cooperate with the Partisans but refused to do so. He was killed in 1944 in battles against the Partisans. Although he was from Rugova, his biography is more related to Sandzak. After the war, like many Sandzak-related figures, a peculiar damnatio memoriae was placed on him in historiographical discourse. In both Yugoslav and Albanian historiography, there was no discussion about him because he was anti-Partisan.

After the collapse of socialism in the 1990s, the book which @Buidhe: mentioned, was written and published. I don't have access to it, but nonetheless a monograph about a figure who has seen no discussion in historiography for 50+ years is a sign of notability In 2017, the author presented a paper on Sak Fazlia in a conference held in the Albanological Institute of Pristina and organized by a cultural organization with links to Sandzak and the municipality of Gjilan. A street has been named after him in Peja, the center of the Rugova region. In 2005, he was reburied in his home village in a ceremony in which the central speaker was the president of Kosovo, Ibrahim Rugova [16] (the blog link is an archive of speeches by Ibrahim Rugova and photos of the events). In the ~30 years that discussion has been allowed about Sak Fazlia in the small region of Kosovo, there has been historiographical, cultural and political activity in relation to him.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been experimenting a bit with the search function on google scholar. Apparently, some results don't show up in certain country-specific settings: I found two papers which mention him [17], published in 2008 and 2011.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another paper [18] published in 2009.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of these just includes his name in a list, not the kind of coverage that contributes to notability. Also, just because something is on Google Scholar does not make it inherently reliable. (t · c) buidhe 08:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- Lack of English language sources is no reason to delete. From the article, he appears to be leader of an irregular war band, which achieved a victory against a Montenegrin one. Since there will not be higher level commanders, any argument from not having a high rank is specious. I presume we disparage communist era Albanian sources as lacking NPOV; and anyway they would be in Albanian. This is not a HOAX and since the person is long dead, issues over the bios of the living do not apply. I know little of the subject. The article is not a good one in its tone, but that is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 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 19:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some new sources can be found to address the concerns raised above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Withdrawn by the nominator and relisted at Mfd: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:BrazyXay (non-admin closure) TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:BrazyXay

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

The subject of this draft (an up and coming rap artist / youtuber) does not seem to have met our notability requirements for a biographical article. Editors associated with this draft have engaged in what appears to be lobbying in en-help (IRC) and some have been blocked. The sources seem to be advertorial in tone and are written by a single journalist. Salimfadhley (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw - this is a draft so should be MfD and not AfD. I have re-nominated it here - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:BrazyXay. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:46, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CSKA 1948–CSKA Sofia rivalry

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

Fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG and seems to be a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL; the teams have literally only played each other once and it seems a bit of a stretch to call it an established rivalry. I can see the logic behind their prediction that this will be a rivalry in the years to come but I would imagine that, at best, this has to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Spiderone 08:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely interesting and potentially notable, but not currently. If anybody digs out Bulgarian-language sources please let me know. Giant Snowman 18:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; far too soon for this to be a notable rivalry. The two sources don't suggest this is a notable rivalry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting this article is just an atempt of silencing and ignoring the real CSKA-Sofia problem, as now we have there a page with wrong information ignoring all the reliable sources and despite numerous attempts nothing happens. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no silencing here. If you are able to provide reliable secondary sources that establish that this is a notable and significant rivalry, then, of course, it can be kept. At the moment, it just seems like a case of someone using a crystal ball to predict that this will be a notable rivalry, which is not really appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Spiderone 08:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the rivalry is somehow considered not to be "notable" due to CRYSTAL, the CSKA dispute is very real and very notable and Wikipedia should adress it, that was my point. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to merging relevant info in to both of the club's articles as I've noticed that this topic isn't really covered in either of them yet. I'm not convinced that it warrants an article of its own, though. Spiderone 10:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there should be at least a section about the dispute in both articles and the article PFC CSKA Sofia should be rewritten according to the sources, but the club fans are blocking any improvements. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth running through dispute resolution if you haven't already done so Spiderone 11:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't participated in the CSKA debate so far and I am not sure it would do anything, as there was allready a RfC and everything was allready explained numerous times (especially by Chris Calvin), but nothing changes and everything seems pointless, it seems everyone lost interest, I mean just read the comments... Maybe Dispute Resolution could halp, but I do not know who has the nerves to do it. Simply deleting this article certainly won't help it. I thnik we need a section or an article titled "Dispute over the identity of PFC CSKA Sofia" and the rivalry should be included there. 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludost Mlačani (talk • contribs) [reply]

Delete: per nom; sports rivalry articles on Wikipedia have very high standards to clear, and this doesn't make it. (That being said, this so-called "rivalry" is already mentioned in the FC CSKA 1948 Sofia article.) That there is a heated dispute over which club -- if any -- has the right to claim the original club's history is a completely different matter. It's obviously been a bone of bitter contention on PFC CSKA Sofia's talk page, but it doesn't need a separate article: it needs a sentence or two in that article, properly sourced. (Honestly, the dispute over a club's lineage, especially in association football where the concept of "phoenix clubs" are well known enough to have a Wikipedia article, doesn't merit any more.) If the aforementioned club fanboys try to delete such information, then it'll wind up a matter for ANI. Ravenswing 07:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animal welfare and rights in India. Tone 08:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against animals in India

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

Nearly whole content fails WP:NOTNEWS. If anyone finds something important then they should better add it to Cruelty to animals#India and/or Animal welfare and rights in India, but a standalone article is unwarranted. Wareon (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there is enough information to have a separate article about abuse trought neglect then having two articles seem rather redundant.★Trekker (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge to Animal welfare and rights in India. That'll be a loooong article to list every incident that's been in the news... Reywas92^Talk 14:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Give me some time...it is like a list article and a lot of incidents are there to include in it. You people can also help by including animal right violation cases in it .similar type of list article also exist on wikipedia ex-Caste based violence in india.Heba Aisha (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above false balance with other 'violence' articles is unconvincing. Social media posts may have brought attention to some incidents but WP:GNG is still yet to be met. Mohanabhil (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Animal welfare and rights in India, article is an unnecessary split from the main topic, and a list of a bunch of non-notable incidents would clearly violate WP:NOTNEWS. I am not convinced there is anything worth merging, but if necessary that can be done from the article history. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Animal welfare and rights in India as per WP:NOTNEWS. Plus the welfare topic covers much broader scope, however the elephant story got huge coverage in the media due to the unusual nature of violence which got captured on tape. Roller26 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seperate see rapes are usual and occur frequently but some of them become notable and even have a seperate article on wikipedia. So is with caste and religious violence ex Godhra riots. I m waiting for you people to decide. If it is kept i will expand it in couple of days. Now i m not trying coz if it get deleted my labour will be wasted.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has enough information. However, there's a need to expand it. Empire AS ^Talk! 05:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:ESSAY nonsense. Does not belong on Wikipedia, even as a redirect. Softlavender (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTNEWS. none of the incidents are notable and are usual news items.ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Double Trouble (2012 Telugu film)

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

Not much sources that I could find if any. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 08:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely fails WP:NFILM. Azuredivay (talk) 02:21, 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 18:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lajja (2016 film)

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

No reliable sources or reviews. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 08:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' as have found three full reviews in reliable sources sify here,Bollywood Hungama here, and rediff here so that the film passes WP:GNG and criteria 1 of WP:NFILM and deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Those reviews are for Lajja (2001 film) and not this film.TamilMirchi (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, have struck my comment Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~ Amkgp 💬 15:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demons Three

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

Pure plot summary & list of appearances. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ludicrous cruft. --Lockley (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is excessive fancruft, badly sourced and with no actual reliable secondary coverage to be found anywhere. Most of it is written in an in-universe style. There's no obvious merge target, or any sourced content to preserve even if there was. Capricious deprods can be a form of disruption. Reyk _YO! 10:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage needed to meet WP:GNG and no particular importance requiring the retention of the information elsewhere. TTN (talk) 13:48, 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 08:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maaz Moeed

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

Fails WP:SINGER. Article is entirely unsourced except for links to a Facebook page and YouTube videos. Lacks any sort of coverage to establish notability. Ə XPLICIT 03:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ə XPLICIT 03:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ə XPLICIT 03:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entirely unsourced. Clearly promotional and probably satisfies CSD G11. Best, Darren-M talk 15:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete this is just spam. Praxidicae (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article was created back in 2008 by a SPA who hasn't edited anything else since then. Sourcing consists of social media and streaming service entries. Article is promotional. No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Tsilent

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

Wrestler that, despite having a bronze medal, does not seem to have been sufficiently covered in the media to establish WP:SPORTBASIC and bypass WP:ONEEVENT. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 03:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, Olympic medalist. What would you know about media coverage in Belarus in 1996? Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geschichte, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. While there are exceptions to this, especially for those that were notable for various years, at best this guy was notable for a few months.

And 1996 is not that far in the past, buddy.

Also, speedy per what item of WP:CSK? Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 15:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy's name in belarussian is Валерий Антонович Цилент if you really care; best wiki article on him is [19] as far as I can tell. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 15:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and snowball- All Olympic medalists are presumed notable on Wikipedia. Antonio Bai coconut Flavor Martin (talk to me) 20:07, 21 September, 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Powers

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

Non-notable sound editor. Only one source listed, which is not significant coverage and does not satisfy general notability, and no special notability guide is applicable. Google search shows that at least three people with the name exist, including a sound engineer, who is the subject. We knew that the subject exists, which is not in itself enough. That is really all that can be said. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very clearly a non-notable sound editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree with both Robert McClenon, the nom, & JPL. There just isn’t enough significant coverage in reliable sources for the article to be retained at the moment. Celestina007 (talk) 07:17, 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.

^ Thies, 1989, p.114

[1] ttps://maravi.blogspot.com/2009/08/newzimbabwe-zim-man-dies-in-freak.html

[2] ttps://www.macleans.ca/society/tarivona-asher-mutsengi-1983-2009/

[3] ttps://www.swiftcurrentonline.com%2Flocal%2Frcmp-release-name-of-farming-accident-victim

[4] Mansoor Ansari on News 18 Published June 2019

[5] Mansoor Ansari on The Hindu

[6] The Outlook India reported Mansoor Ansari

[7] Mansoor Ansari on the Rediff.com

[8] Scrool.in reported on Mansoor Ansari

[9] Times of India

[10] Thies, 1989, p.114

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]