< 15 September	17 September >

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

The result was keep, as improved. BD2412 T 01:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Mormon[edit]

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

Only found a single Dove review and a couple of mentions. Isn’t even on Rotten Tomatoes, so the likelihood of finding actual professional reviews of this thing is slim. Dronebogus (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As this is a short direct-to-video documentary, it's understandable that it hasn't received much coverage in reliable sources, but with so little coverage I don't think that this film can be considered notable per WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple, reliable, independent sources that discuss it. Per WP:CFBWEST. Epachamo (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reviews in Deseret Times, Meridian Magazine, The Dove Organisation and other coverage which has been added to the article since nomination so that WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk)
Keep per WP:HEY for ReaderofthePack's additions. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Ma[edit]

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

Contested PROD, a non-notable tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG, possible WP:TOOSOON case. Iffy★Chat -- 21:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable tennis player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is Too Soon. Winning a U-16 event doesn't guarantee notability, and the only substantial independent coverage in the article is what looks to be a high school blog (that's Dublin, California). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:57, 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) 21:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burgas derby[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NRIVALRY; whilst the clubs are close to each other geographically, they have only met 14 times. There don't seem to be any sources at all discussing this rivalry. Spiderone 21:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur as above. Ok they've played each other 14 times, and at a stretch it might have been a rivalry. But, there simply aren't sources to support an article, and certainly nothing to meet WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ENEA AB#Products. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LINX (IPC)[edit]

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

Directory entry by a WP:SPA with no independent sources. Google finds nothing other than a few press releases. The related Operating System Embedded was recently redirected at AfD. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ENEA_AB#Products, where it is mentioned. There is some secondary sourcing available, such as a paragraph in this book, but I was unable to find enough sourcing to satisfy notability requirements. The project is already mentioned with a sentence in the company article, which seems due weight. Hence with basic verifiability and a good target, redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion that, per our policy WP:ATD, is preferred over deletion. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 17:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ENEA AB#Products: Barely found anything about the product aside from the source indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 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 redirect to List of Major League Baseball games played outside the United States and Canada#Games played in Puerto Rico. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MLB Puerto Rico Series[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, the only coverage available is routine announcements of either the planned series or its eventual cancellation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no substantial coverage. Events such as MLB China Series that actually happened barely have enough coverage for an article. List of Major League Baseball games played outside the United States and Canada#Games played in Puerto Rico might be a redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:00, 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. Sandstein 16:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dingbats (notebook)[edit]

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

Appears to be promotional and its only source is the official website (thereby not being verifiable due to being a self-published source). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBRAND. WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is hopelessly promotional. Vexations (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page was created by me - I have no affiliations to the company. It was made because the company is expanding in the market, discussed frequently on social medias such as YouTube and demonstrates a sustainable approach. Since the nomination for deletion, I have removed unnecessary excessive praise for the company and sourced secondary articles and continue to do so. I published the page, with the intention to add further information on reviewing. This is allowed into consideration for improving rather than deleting an article, as the article was recently created and more time could be allowed to develop the article WP:BEFORE. AmaranthinePsithurism (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
discussed frequently on social medias such as YouTube is not a notability criterion that any notability guide endorses. It is worth noting in the AfD that the company has been running an influencer campaign in YouTube with product giveaways. The YouTube coverage is not "organic", but paid for. We should almost never accept YouTube as a source, but ESPECIALLY not in this case.Vexations (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G11 level spam sourced to primary sources and press releases. To be fair, there is one reliable independent source here... which ranked it 69/100 in a list of 100 notebooks. Not exactly an indication of encyclopedic notability. Spicy (talk) 15:00, 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 19:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide's 65 Best Episodes of the 21st Century[edit]

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

A one-off magazine listicle turned into a Wikipedia article. I see it's reprinted in a couple places, but there's not enough coverage of this list to justify a stand-alone article. i.e. same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Guide's 60 Greatest Cartoons of All Time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only finding blog posts and reposts of the original piece. Fails WP:GNG Hog Farm _Bacon 19:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a click bait article. This is the answer to what is not WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT. // Timothy :: talk 14:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See no potential in preserving the article. NavjotSR (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm also seeing no potential in this article being preversed. Pahiy (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, not a stand alone article. Alex-h (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Denning[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ENT. This article was kept at AfD in 2011 on the strength of Ms. Denning's television and modelling credits. Her TV credits are reality show appearances and bit parts. I looked for additional references and found mainly tabloid/gossip coverage (examples: Now magazine, Worcester News, The Mirror, The Sun). I suggest a redirect to her 2015 reality series Life on Marbs. Cheers, gnu 57 19:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bunch of one time appearances and bit parts do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no coverage in reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to her as a person. Instead, there are many mentions in low quality sources that report that she is a topless model with an excellent physique, at least ten years ago. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 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 19:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal (British singer)[edit]

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

This article uses youtube videos, streaming sites and some other trivial mentions as references. I think these are not WP:RS. This article should be deleted.UserNumber (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.UserNumber (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.UserNumber (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.UserNumber (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 16.UserNumber (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NMUSICIAN Spiderone 21:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The first reference is a dead link to a blog allegedly demonstrating that one of his singles was on rotation on BBC Radio Northampton, but even this would fail WP:NMUSICIAN, as it's not a national radio station. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I just can't find enough evidence of serious notability – he might well have a following in UK Asian music but he doesn't appear to have attracted major attention as yet. I seriously doubt that his song was "on rotation" on BBC Radio Northampton – like most BBC local radio stations, its daytime programming is mostly news, talk shows and phone-ins, with some coverage of local sports teams in action and what little music there is, is mainstream chart music and oldies. There is one evening show per week dedicated to Asian music... my guess is that the song got one play on this show, but it certainly wouldn't have been on a daytime playlist. As an aside, About Us: The Ultimate Love Story maybe could have been bundled into this nomination, but will have to go to a separate AfD... I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion as there's an assertion of an independent review. Richard3120 (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tour-Mate Systems[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I found one decently in-depth article in the Financial Post on ProQuest called "Toronto's Tour-Mate a hit with zoos" (1991) and that's it. AFAICS, the journal article mentioned in the article at the moment (doi:10.1002/sce.20184) isn't really about the company. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North of Chiang Mai[edit]

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

Film with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely fails WP:NFILM. Didn't find any SIGCOV. Too many non-notable films have articles on Wikipedia. Rogermx (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marsh Creek (Missouri). Low participation, but seems an uncontroversial redirect. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh Creek, Missouri[edit]

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

GNIS indicates a census code of U6, which indicates a geographic point of some sort without legal recognition. This means that U6-coded places will almost never meet WP:GEOLAND. State Historical Society calls it a "post office and rural community" founded in 1921, but the 1930 topo shows exactly one building there, making the meaning of "rural community" unclear. Off the topos by 1981. Not on the 1986 topo. USGS apparently doesn't know exactly where it is, as the 2015 topo has it on the wrong side of the river. One statement on the SHS source: the different counties were written by different authors. Some of the authors clearly discriminate between communities and post offices, like the person who wrote the Cedar County one, but the Madison County author doesn't seem to have made this distinction. No evidence this way anything more than a rural post office. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marsh Creek (Missouri). Valid search term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposed to that in any way, if I'd thought of it, I might've done it myself. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I have already warned the nominator about personal attacks. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Escola Portuguesa de Luanda[edit]

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

This school doesn't seem notable. The only sources in the article are primary. Except for a dead link. Plus, a BEFORE only turned up a few trivial (both in the subjects and depth of coverage) news articles about it. Secondary schools aren't inherently notable. So, this seems to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and there are more, don't seem trivial (all in Portuguese). However, most of them arguably do fall under WP:1EVENT (assuming, for a moment, that 1EVENT can be about schools as opposed to people). Basically, there have been some financial irregularities at this (private) school, which have been the subject of substantial controversy. There were even protests at the Portuguese embassy in Luanda about it. I don't necessarily think this gets it past GNG, but it's not nothing. Perhaps those with better Portuguese than mine would be able to comment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one, including me, has yet !voted, I'll say weak keep based on the sources I've identified. Again, many are about a single event, hence the "weakness". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general comment, whatever the case is about it being a single event thing or not, all of the sources except for one are from two news outlets and sources from the same outlet only count as one source for the sake of notability. Also, interestingly two of the articles from Sapo were printed on the same day and one of them is anonymous for some reason. Which seems a little sketchy. The fifth source is about how schools in Portugal, including this one, are dealing with Chronovirus. Which I would call trivial. One the single event thing, for me it usually comes to if there is sustained coverage and if the coverage is not mainly sensationalism. It's hard to tell if either is true in this case. One article (and really the topic in general) is about how the parents are in dept to the school and I'd say that's sensationalism because it's about the parents complaining about tuition hikes, but there's evidence it ever went anywhere legal and people being upset about something isn't notable on it's own IMO. Plus, maybe they just don't manage their money well and want to blame the school for it because the news was doing an article about it. There's no way to tell, but "outrage" (transient or otherwise) doesn't qualify as notable as far as I see it. Especially when that's all there seems to be. I'm still open to this maybe being notable for what it's covered for in the articles though if something more substantial can be found about it, or things can be clarified. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited an acedemic book that is unrelated to the scandal mentioned in the news reports linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find it weird that anyone would find this not notable. There are four foreign language secondary Category:Schools in Luanda, this one, Escola Português de Luanda, appears to be the oldest, and the largest. We don't have an article for the Colégio Português de Luanda, or the Colégio S. Francisco de Assis – Luanda Sul all of which are verified on Portuguese Education Ministry site. We do have one for the smaller Luanda International School. A notability test is about potential, it is not the same as a GA review. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being the oldest X of whatever doesn't automatically make something notable. Also, notability isn't determined by the "potential" for something to be notable, whatever that means (everything could "potentially" be notable), its determined by the topic having multiple in-depth reliable sources that discuss it. That's it. Not how long its been around, it being the first of something, or anything else. Adamant1 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources that discuss it with significant coverage, not necessarily cited currently in the article or available via a Google search. You are nominating the top schools in Africa for deletion, but ignoring the many run-of-the-mill schools in Western Anglophone countries that have articles. I'm trying to stretch the assumption of good faith here, but I can't help feeling that there is an unsavoury agenda here. That an article is about an African subject, and Africa is not covered online as well as other continents, doesn't mean that a proper search for sources shouldn't be undertaken before deletion nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say they needed to be currently cited in the article or available via a Google search? Obviously their existence has to be variable outside of vague comments that there might be some "because it's an old school brah," because that's not how things in Wikipedia works. So, if you want to make vague comments without providing evidence as to their truthfulness this isn't the place to do it. I could really give a crap if your evidence if a Google search or not though. Same goes for your comment that I'm nominating "the top schools in Africa." There's zero indication from anywhere that they are (because there aren't any damn sources that say are or anything else about them for that matter) and I'm not going to just take some random persons word for it. Again, that's not how Wikipedia works. Also, your criticism that I'm ignoring "run-of-the-mill schools in Western Anglophone countries" is obviously just more bullshit. Since I've done plenty of nominations for schools in "western Anglophone countries" (whatever the hell that means). It's not like I have to though. I can nominate whatever the hell I want, that's located wherever the hell I feel like it being located. That said, you'd have zero way of knowing what I've nominated or not unless you were looking through my edit history. If you were I'd 100% consider that WP:HARASS. Just like I consider your message attacking me for this nomination as harassment. If you think I'm specifically targeting African's with my AfDs though, feel free to report me for it. Otherwise, piss off and go take a long walk off a short pier or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming what a nasty piece of work you are. I simply look at what has been proposed or nominated for deletion, which I do without regard to who has proposed or nominated deletion, but then find that a significant number are proposed or nominated by you. That is not harassment, but simply an observation that you are responsible. Just start looking for sources rather than assuming that everything is non-notable that doesn't currently cite sources that you would like. And if you really don't have the English comprehension to know what means then you are not qualified to be editing an English-language encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been an editor for like 5 years and have nominated a couple of thousand articles across many subjects during that time. Including plenty of articles about schools all over the world. The problem is that your cherry picking a few recent examples to attack my motivations instead of basing your argument on the notability of the subject. Which is what AfDs are about. Your the one being nasty by making this personal when there's zero reason to. That said, people nominate multiple articles having to do with the same subject all the time. That's just how things work. For instance there's been a bunch of AfDs about geographical locations in California the last month. The people doing the nominations aren't specifically "targeting California." The rules for the notability of secondary schools was changed recently so a lot aren't notable anymore. Which is why I'm doing a bunch of nominations. It's just easier to keep track of things by doing them based on their geographical location. That's it. I really give a crap about Africa or anything related to it outside of that though. Your complete ignorance about the process and how this works doesn't equate to me intentionally targeting none ""Western Anglophone countries."

As far as "Western Anglophone countries" goes, obviously I know what the term means. I just think it's a semi-racist, ethnocentric, and totally ignorant troupe to divide the world into "Anglophone Westerns" and none "Anglophones Westerns." Since it has zero basis in reality. Especially when it comes to Africa countries. For instance 10% of the population of South Africa is whites of Germanic decent. It would be a completely garbage argument to claim that someone is targeting anything specific if they nominate something related to Egypt and the Congo just because they aren't "Western Anglophone countries" to. Just because both are in Africa doesn't mean they have anything in common or that classifying them as none ""Western Anglophone countries" has any meaning or usefulness outside of Klan rally. Your the one being nasty by claiming it does or that I'm being motivated by it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by chalking the whole thing up to ignorance on your part though and end it there. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juju Noda[edit]

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

While the subject may have coverage in some topic-specific media, a 14-year-old Formula 4 driver is hardly notable enough for encyclopaedic inclusion. Hundreds, if not low thousands of drivers compete in Formula 4 and other junior series every year and many have received greater coverage off of more notable achievements. I don't see what qualifies Noda as notable enough for an article other than a short burst of attention at her first Danish F4 race and a handful of articles commentating on her aspirations, which does not meet the requirement for significant coverage, and most certainly does not meet the motorsport notability guidelines. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few young female motorsport drivers. The deletion of this page, which highlights an incredible young prospect who is already achieving great success, is tantamount to the suppression of gender equality that is widespread across the motorsport community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPaperwings (talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a platform for social advocacy. The subject is not notable based off of a single Danish F4 race.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the purpose of Wikipedia is not to right perceived wrongs. We should doubly not be doing it by over publicizing minors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment: The article also appears to fail the WP:YOUNGATH notability guideline, as most sources used on the article are either extremely short articles that essentially say "this happened" with no further detail (e.g. 1, e.g. 2, e.g. 3) or only make brief mention of her (e.g. 1, e.g. 2).
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:58, 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 18:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No coverage beyond routine mentions. A case of NOTINHERITED and TOOSOON. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. does not meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Canadian National Exhibition. czar 03:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors Day Parade[edit]

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

I see no evidence of notability for this event in the article as accepted, but perhaps these is evidence elsewhere DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Canadian National Exhibition. Currently briefly mentioned there; could become a small section. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - I think this article is notable, though I recognize it could be seen as fringe, in which case a merge would be appropriate. I've found these articles (1 2 3) and updated the page accordingly. AviationFreak💬 15:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On a second look, I found that the parade is the subject of a plaque conferred by the Ontario Heritage Trust (see [9]). I put a pic of the plaque in the article. These plaques are fairly common, so I don't think it's necessarily enough to keep a standalone article, but thought I'd mention in any event. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:27, 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 18:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Notable enough to keep but probably doesn't need it's own page blindlynx (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There might be just barely enough sourcing to make a case for notability, but per WP:NOPAGE it seems like it makes the most sense to expand the content in the parent article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Paffrath[edit]

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

No indication of importance. Fails WP:GNG AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 18:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 18:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Youtuber - I see a few blog posts about this person, which are negative and poorly-sourced (so I won't link them). I don't see sufficient coverage for an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone of this name was attacked by a shark, so that's something. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not youtube. If you cannot find any sourcing on someone anywhere except youtube they are very unlikely to be notable. The only times this does not apply is if you have done throughly ineffective searching or if someone has deliberately destroyed all the sources on the individual not on youtube. Not that sourcing does not have to be online.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage and no sign of supporting WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical Sekt[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:BAND. Third-party independent sources to establish notability are very scarce; I could only find this OC Weekly article, which is partly an interview. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per the suggestion of Dom Kaos, I am also nominating the following related pages for the band's albums since they do not satisfy WP:NALBUM:

- Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a promotional piece of a non-notable band with no significant coverage in reliable sources - Fails WP:BAND. GSS ^💬 18:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The name was familiar so I decided to look them up. I have also found the OC Weekly article, as well an album review on Metal.de and Sputnikmusic. These are reliable sources. The rest of the results are the usual junk like databases, social media, streaming sites, blogs, retail sites and concert sites (the concert sites only state that "they have no upcoming concerts for this artist" - that's right because they split up).GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing those out. Metal.de is indeed a reliable source, but Sputnikmusic entry has no staff or emeritus reviews that can be used as far as I see. (per WP:A/S) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: falls short of criteria at WP:NBAND. Can we bundle their three albums, Geneticide, Burn Process and Syncope (album) into this nomination? I can't find anything that would pass WP:NALBUM for any of them. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it would indeed be appropriate to bundle them since they certainly do fail the notability criteria for WP:NALBUM. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see the albums aren't notable on their own, and would fit better on the band page. Regarding the band, is it expected that a band gradually loses notability, and has its page deleted? It's difficult to find evidence 10 years later, when much of it was probably in print-only magazines. It looks like there was a tour in 2007, following an album charting in the Deutsche Alternative Charts, although de:wiki doesn't like that chart. A German fan might have better sources, i.e. old magazines.

It looks like I don't like WP:BAND, but I don't want to get involved, so I'm not going to vote for retaining the articles. ƕ (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Narjis. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narjis daughter of Yeshua[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article. It makes a claim that her grandfather was the "king of Rome", I think this might mean the head of the SUltanate of Rum, which was in what is today Turkey, but I am not sure. It lakes sources, and is written in a clearly unencyclopedic style. My search for sources just showed up a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors, which shows we really need to stop allowing random creation of articles and start forcing all articles through the Articles for Creation process John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely unsourced. Since this article is apparently about a Christian woman who converted to Islam and is written from a Muslim perspective, the claim that her grandfather was "king of Rome" may mean that he was the emperor of the Byzantine Empire, which was traditionally referred to as Rome in Arabic, and for that matter was called the Roman Empire by its own Greek-speaking inhabitants in that era. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Narjis. We already have a much better article about this person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Narjis. It doesn't seem completely implausible as a search term, and redirects are cheap. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Narjis. Nika2020 (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and perhaps check the other two articles this editor created in case they are similar duplicates (am on phone, can't do it myself). PamD 05:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, I haven't found any other articles on this Wikipedia about those other people (Yahya ibn Ummi Taweel and Abdul Salam ibn Salih). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Many assertions of notability, but entirely lacking in supporting evidence. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Polling Institute[edit]

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

When this was a draft it was declined by Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) they helpfully left the author this feedback: "In the references, I see people citing polls conducted by API, along with interviews of API's director. These don't support notability. What we need are people writing about API." Regardless, the draft has been moved into mainspace, bypassing the Articles for Creation process, without addressing this concern. I have read through the references and none of them constitute in depth, independent, secondary coverage about the Institute. Therefore it fails to meet the WP:NORG criteria and should be deleted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sure this organization is highly notable with no any iota of doubt. Looking at the information used, there is no any promotional sentences, and the information is directly from the website where I acknowledged it there, and the references used are from highly independent reliable sources. As one editor who reviewed earlier said, he want to see people talking about API, there are numerous independent newspapers that talked about it which I used in the reference.

So to me, this article is highly notable and eligible to be in wikipedia. It has pass all the criteria and notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas Kwarbai (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- You have stated that the article is "highly notable" without specifically detailing how it meets any notability criteria. Do not confuse notability with importance. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This draft reads like an information brochure published by a non-profit organization. Not every non-profit is notable. This is typical of non-profit drafts that I would decline in AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Africa polling institute article has more than ten references with full coverage of secondary independent sources. And there is not any promotional sentences or words. So for that reason. API is notable to be in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas Kwarbai (talk • contribs) 09:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbas Kwarbai: You continue to misunderstand the difference between a newspaper article mentioning Africa Polling Institute (such as that API has produced a report on a recent poll) and being about API, such as the history of the Institute, the impact it has had on society, etc. An interview with someone who talks about the Institute doesn't count towards notability because the person is not independent. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Lacks suitable sources to pass GNG which also means that the content is just a self description. I said "weak" because all factors considered, it wouldn't be too crazy to give it a pass. North8000 (talk) 01:46, 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 ~~keep~~ no consensus. General consensus after two relists despite low participation. Post closure comment- IMO this shouldn't have been nominated if there was an active merge proposal on the article.(non-admin closure) Nightfury 20:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Mental Retardation Professional[edit]

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

WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies here. Does not meet WP:GNG. // Timothy :: talk 00:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep - seems to meet the notability guidelines. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Talk:Qualified_Intellectual_Disability_Professional#Proposed_merge_of_Qualified_Mental_Retardation_Professional_into_Qualified_Intellectual_Disability_Professional -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Both articles have been nominated for deletion based on not meeting WP:GNG and WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. What a barbaric, stupid proposal. No case is made for this term failing the GNG, and none can be made. This is a standard, well-documented term. Now while some editors may believe that an encyclopedia is not the place to provide accurate, useful information to parents and family members trying to deal with the many problems of intellectually disabled children and adults, as opposed to the core encyclopedic function of presenting semifictional promotional biographies of professional wrestlers, I do not. And I have no respect for the opinion of those who do. Merger appears appropriate, but should not be discussed in the deletion context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vibraphone. Tone 07:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mallet dampening[edit]

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

Merged page into article Damping (music); I don't believe this page has enough weight to stand on its own Why? I Ask (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back and WP:SALT. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian's !vote seems to makes no sense because the page always seems to have been separate and there doesn't seem to be anything in its history which would warrant salting. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being discussed in detail in numerous sources including Percussion Pedagogy and Teaching Percussion. As the sources seem to use the current title for the Vibraphone in particular, burying the topic under some other title concerning techniques for other types of instrument would be disruptive. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Damping (music) or, if combining with other instruments is "disruptive", to Vibraphone#Technique. Absolutely does not warrant separate article. Reywas92^Talk 03:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vibraphone ili (talk) 11:58, 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 07:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Michel, Count of Évreux[edit]

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

Deposed monarchy cruft, mostly routine genealogy, no real claim to notability. PatGallacher (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete More pretender-cruft with no other claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the house he is part of was in power for 18 years, they had been out of power for 93 years when he was born. Thus, they had been out of power, when he was born, for over 4 times the time they had been in power. This is an extreme of deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep French Wikipedia has a well sourced detailed article which clearly demonstrates notability. In time hopefully that content can be translated for the English Wikipedia article. - dwc lr (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , he isn't a prince or count. Ridiculous. Nothing to indicate notability. Smeat75 (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dwc lr. --Richiepip (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dwc lr, but article requires improvement from French editors. VocalIndia (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Some of the sources from the French article could be added to the English one. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The French article says much the same as the English, except that it goes into more details of the intra-family spat over his status, which is of no real world import, and a bit more about his employment, which does not seem notable. Other than that, it's all royal-pretender genealogy. Mangoe (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , per John Pack Lambert --Bduke (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the analysis of Mangoe, the french article does not have the necessary sourcing for this person to pass WP:GNG either. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. TheRedDomitor (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet GNG or BASIC. Since this is a BLP, its important to strictly follow sourcing and notability guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 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. Fenix down (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shunta Araki[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale that he did meet NFOOTY, however he does not meet WP:NFOOTY, having never played in a fully professional league. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot read Japanese to verify if he did play in the Emperor's Cup - but if he did then he would meet WP:NFOOTBALL, as he played for a team from a fully-professional league in a competitive match against another team from a fully-professional league. However, more importantly, he fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Giant Snowman 21:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has played in professional teams match. He meets WP:NFOOTBALL. --Amefuri2019 (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Was subbed in on minute 67 so meets WP:NFOOTBALL.^[1] Might have WP:SIGCOV, but the kanji is different so I'm not sure if its the same person.^[2] If it is, then weak keep. Jumpytoo Talk 01:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Emperor Cup Match Results" (PDF).
^ "骨折から復帰後アシスト能力"覚醒" 駒大FW荒木駿太「ちょっと意識」豊富な運動量で2桁得点も狙う！：中日スポーツ・東京中日スポーツ". 中日スポーツ・東京中日スポーツ (in Japanese). Retrieved 2020-09-17.

Delete - the clear failure of WP:GNG should take precedence over scraping by on WP:NFOOTY; as above, the kanji looks slightly different so probably not the same player so no evidence of SIGCOV Spiderone 10:23, 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. Fenix down (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuta Saitai[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale that he did meet NFOOTY, however he does not meet WP:NFOOTY, having never played in a fully professional league. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot read Japanese to verify if he did play in the Emperor's Cup - but if he did then he would meet WP:NFOOTBALL, as he played for a team from a fully-professional league in a competitive match against another team from a fully-professional league. However, more importantly, he fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Giant Snowman 21:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has played in professional teams match. He meets WP:NFOOTBALL. --Amefuri2019 (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The articles source shows he was substituted in at minute 64, so he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Not sure if WP:GNG is met, but can give benefit of the doubt as sourcing could be hard to find (since they're likely 9 year old Japanese articles) Jumpytoo Talk 01:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the clear failure of WP:GNG should take precedence over scraping by on WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 10:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaro Kume[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale that he did meet NFOOTY, however he does not meet WP:NFOOTY, having never played in a fully professional league. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot read Japanese to verify if he did play in the Emperor's Cup - but if he did then he would meet WP:NFOOTBALL, as he played for a team from a fully-professional league in a competitive match against another team from a fully-professional league. However, more importantly, he fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Giant Snowman 21:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has played in professional teams match. He meets WP:NFOOTBALL. --Amefuri2019 (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played in the Emperor Cup as a defender and was subbed out at minute 83, so meets WP:NFOOTBALL.^[1] Also has WP:SIGCOV (sources from Japanese article)^[2]^[3]. Jumpytoo Talk 01:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Emperor Cup Match Result" (PDF).
^ "トップチームも注目、徳島のマルセロ系WB久米航太郎が試合の流れ一変させる一撃". ゲキサカ (in Japanese). Retrieved 2020-09-17.
^ "今季に懸けるトップ昇格２選手 MF藤原「悔しさ原動力に」 DF久米「１試合でも多く」｜スポーツ｜徳島ニュース｜徳島新聞". 徳島新聞Web (in Japanese). Retrieved 2020-09-17.

Keep - meets GNG and NFOOTY Spiderone 07:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Conversation[edit]

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

non-notable podcast, no independent coverage to be found, Praxidicae (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Charmk (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the podcast. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:51, 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 speedy delete. ... discospinster _talk 01:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drip Baby (mixtape)[edit]

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

Non-notable run-of-the-mill mixtape by non-notable but self-promoting musician. Neither the tape nor the artist comes anywhere close to musical notability, let alone general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A9, I've tagged it for speedy. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User:Hog Farm - This wasn't a valid A9 at the time that I nominated it, because A9 is a non-notable work for a musician who does not have an article. The autobiography of the author was tagged for A7 at the time, so it was an article, until it wasn't. Thank you for adding the A9 when you could. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and comment: the editor is also creating articles for other albums, with exactly the same issues of no context for the track listing. Some of them are simply the track listings for deluxe versions of previously released albums, which are already included in the main album article, e.g. Changes Deluxe (Justin Bieber album). Richard3120 (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Adner[edit]

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

Contested PROD, for no stated reason. Rationale was "Farcical longevity claim, very little sourcing, and almost entirely consists of utterly mundane details. Having one painting supposedly depicting the subject isn't close to the threshold of notability." The German article isn't much better, and most of the article is completely irrelevant noise; who cares if a guy made wooden boxes? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources check out and are actually quite cautious about claims of his old age. One of the sources [10] goes into quite a bit of detail about the involvement of Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria it the care of Adner. The king sent a doctor and insisted on daily reports of Adler's condition. After his Adner's death, the king paid for his funeral. Somebody obviously cared a great deal about a guy who made wooden boxes. Vexations (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am seeing lots and lots of what appear to be non-trivial mentions in a Google Books search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether or not he makes boxes is not the issue; it is whether he is notable for what he accomplished. There is enough sources out there WP:NEXIST and there are. Netherzone (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And where are these sources? The ones in the article sure are rather... sparse. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A 5-minute search yielded these; there are additional ones as well. [11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21] Netherzone (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Thing (comics). Tone 07:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of the Thing[edit]

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

Same at the others put up for deletion recently, this is an unnecessary offshoot article born from splitting out overly in-depth plot information rather than trimming it to fit into the main article. WP:GNG and WP:WAF are not fulfilled. This should be summarized in the main article, but I don't believe any of the current content is particularly worth being retained. TTN (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thing (comics) per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thing (comics): Merge per BOZ, no evidence we need a stand-alone article _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bast[edit]

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

Non-notable writer. I can find lots of press releases, but no significant independent coverage of the person or any books by him, just some brief mentions in relation to doomsday scenarios. Schazjmd (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources added Enginez (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Enginez[reply]

Delete:Not any significant coverage that I could find. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 11:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being brought in to spout finge non-sense by a few publications in the way Mr. Bast was does not constitute passing any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Solomon LLP[edit]

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

Another law firm that fails WP:NCORP. I checked the newspaper citations referred to in the article and they were not impressive: some of their lawyers have been interviewed about employment law matters over the years, as one would expect for an employment law firm. Other coverage is in Rochester, New York–area press so fails WP:AUD. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete precisely per nom. BD2412 T 15:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can only find passing mentions, primary sources, and paid for/"sponsored" coverage. Fails WP:NORG. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 18:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Hallman[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, since most coverage of him is about his business instead. All of the rewards he's received are local awards that don't seem notable. Many of them are from the same local business journal, and the majority of other claims are unsourced.

I'm a bit suspicious of this article as well, because it was written promotionally for years by multiple SPAs (but I know that's not a reason for deletion - it just means it would have to majorly be cleaned up). Whisperjanes (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very much a non-notable businessman. Reads way too much like a resume or a CV. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Elkaim[edit]

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

This is spam for an businessman that masquerades as a sports bio. The sources are a profile by an entrepreneur.com contributor and the subject's own website. Per entrepreneur.com: Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. In other words, the magazine exercised no editorial control over the content. It is neither independent nor reliable. With regards to his notability as a soccer player: a) Elkaim also played as an amateur for the Toronto Lynx. WP:NFOOTBALL says players are presumed notable if they play in fully professional leagues. Presumed notable means that it is likely that sources exist. I'm challenging that rebuttable presumption. There are no independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject (either as a soccer player) or a businessman. Vexations (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He made three appearances and zero goals for Toronto Lynx in the fully pro USL First Division which is in the list of fully pro leagues thus meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Das osmnezz, He is presumably notable per WP:NFOOTBALL IF you're right about playing in a fully pro league despite playing as an amateur. Since he played for the Toronto Lynx as an amateur in 2001, four years before the USL First Division was established, he does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL.
But I think you omit to address a point I raise. What I really do is challenge the presumable part. The assumption of notability is not supported by extant sources. No sources exist that make him notable. That's a rebuttal, the presumption of notability now no longer stands. Vexations (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - comprehensively fails GNG, which far surpasses scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about soccer player who made a total of 3 appearances in the A League during his entire career. There is a presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL but the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG (all online coverage of his soccer career is trivial, e.g., [22]) and there is a longstanding consensus that the presumption is invalid in these cases. Perhaps the article can meet the GNG through coverage of his business accomplishments, but I only found the one Entrepreneur article which isn't enough in my view to satisfy the significant coverage requirement. Jogurney (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective referencing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear GNG fail Spiderone 17:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A History of the Palestinian People[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable self-published book book which fails WP:NBOOK, The book temporarily received publicity as an insult to Palestinian people. The joke is that most of the pages in the book are blank. Wikipedia should not be a tool which is used to assist one side of the conflict by giving article space to this book which fails WP:N. Additionally the article's creator was perma-blocked by the WMF, Lightburst (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has sources with significant independent coverage, including the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz and the Jewish Journal. I agree that the book is inflammatory and insulting to the Palestinian people, but the discussion of it reflects the complex history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The article has extensive coverage of both the "positive" and "negative" reaction to the book, and it is not a one-sided tool to assist either side of the conflict. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is 42 sources no good enough?? Some of them are pretty good as Toughpigs has pointed out. I fail to see why this is at AfD. Govvy (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy I will expound. As a book this self-published empty book does not pass any of the five points outlined in the WP:BKCRIT guiedline. FYI: all 120 of the book's pages are blank. If we consider this book an event it is not WP:LASTING, it made a splash in Israeli publications (toughpigs included a few) as joke and probably because Amazon pulled it from their site. The book made news for those reasons, yet we are WP:NOTNEWS. Additionally two of the !voters in the first AfD were socks and another one is a WMF blocked editor. Lightburst (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the relevant policy is WP:GNG; there was significant discussion about the book in reliable news outlets. I agree that as a work of literature or history, this obviously fails, because, as you said, it's blank, self-published and essentially just a hurtful joke. But the quality of the work is not relevant for determining the notability of the subject, if it's had significant coverage. Also, your two comments about the creator and AfD participants being socks/banned are not relevant to the notability of this subject. The contributions of individual banned editors are not a "poison pill" that makes the article subject less notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and No, but you seem to forget the concept of the art form here. Although I personally think it's kinda disgusting. It has provoked reactions and that is what the article shows, this is not just a book it is also a piece of art. The reaction to this art is evident enough to have multiple sources and this seems to pass GNG to me. Govvy (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG based on coverage presented by Toughpigs. Wikipedia does not delete articles because their subject is offensive/insulting/etc.★Trekker (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear you advocate keeping a book with all blank pages based on RS? Yet the only RS involves the same story over and over... "Amazon got duped". Look over the references and the ones provided by Toughpigs above - they are about Amazon getting fooled - not about the book. The empty book was trolling, and a joke and in no way notable as art, an event or a book. The only sources to be found center around Amazon. The joke is long over but we are keeping an article based entirely on RS that repeats the same story over and over - and it is about Amazon not the book. Lightburst (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pass WP:GNG. Discussed in numerous WP:RS --Shrike (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Received significant coverage in several RIS. As long as this is the case, the article should be kept in spite of the offence it may cause to some readers per WP:CENSOR. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York Police Department officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

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

The reasons for deletion outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officers killed in the line of duty apply equally to this article: Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and this is a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation that fails WP:LISTN. This is also almost entirely unreferenced. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a list of people so the relevant guideline to pass is WP:NLIST. Lists which provide navigation or information are usually kept. This list provides information. The death of a police officer is dramatic yet the officer may not merit an individual article, so the list is an appropriate placement. The nomination calls out the lack of references, however items on the list can be referenced they are notable. Additionally the fact that another list of Sherifs was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted - WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Lightburst (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTSTATS. We could have a list of notable deaths and deaths of notable officers, but not every death classified by the department as "line of duty." pburka (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a WP:NOT issue more than anything. This (like other similar lists) is effectively a reproduction of data available through the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Duplicating content from a memorial seems problematic since we have WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Wikipedia should have very few lists that aim to be exhaustive, and I would support having this if more of the individual cases were noteworthy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Minto stabbing attack[edit]

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

The event has had no WP:LASTING coverage and we are WP:NOTNEWS. Lightburst (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, WP:SNOW and WP:NOTADVERT. Article can be restored if notability is clearly established beyond publications giving it notice due to promotional efforts. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump 2024: The World After Trump[edit]

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

I am deeply unsure how notable this is. It seems to all be about pre-release promotion, even though the film is supposed to have been released. No reviews or post-release press. Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And lots of asking for people to sponsor screenings, so I am not sure its has in fact been released other then as a YouTube video.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have an official release date, just a month. Most films are released on a given day.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Looks self-promotion of a campaign stunt. Two "news" outlets cited, Washington Times and the deceptively titled CBN news which seems to be Christian Broadcasting Network "at the forefront of the culture wars since the network’s inception in the early 1960s", so both appear to be unreliable sources. Third party sourcing needed. . . dave souza, talk 14:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Paul Crouch Jr.. Non-notable conspiracy theory video. Note that it will most likely become more than just a YouTube video. Crouch is perfectly capable of ordering a run of DVDs and selling them online and in Christian bookstores, of buying time on religious cable channels, and of arranging screenings at fundamentalist churches. All standard marketing for videos of this nature, and not in any way an indication of notability. Basic principle: if you can buy it, it isn't evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I've not found many actual reliable sources covering the film, so it currently fails WP:NFSOURCES. As it's not been released, it does not meet any of the five WP:NFO criteria — even if it were released, I doubt it would meet the criteria still. Seems rather self-promotional as mentioned by Dave souza (it's almost as if there's an election around the corner!). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. The notability bar is pretty far from being met, and we're not here to provide free publicity. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP. Let them advertise it in other locations. If it becomes notable, then we'll have an article. jps (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP. Nika2020 (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per Guy. I have added some sources, but coverage still seems pretty flimsy considering the film was just released. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

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

The reasons for deletion outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officers killed in the line of duty apply equally to this article: Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and this is a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation that fails WP:LISTN. Like that article, this also lacks inline citations and relies on three general references, two to primary sources and the other to an unreliable source based on user-generated content. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a list of people so the relevant guideline to pass is WP:NLIST. Lists which provide navigation or information are usually kept. This list provides information. The death of a police officer is dramatic yet the officer may not merit an individual article, so the list is an appropriate placement. The nomination calls out the lack of references, however items on the list can be referenced they are notable. Additionally the fact that another list of Sherifs was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted - we may find a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails NLIST and WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the subject fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. The subject, the death of LAPD officers on-duty, as opposed to the death of individual officers has to be covered in reliable sources. Any statements about what's "usually kept" are logically inconsistent with sentences about how another similar list was just deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a WP:NOT issue more than anything, owing to its intent to be an exhaustive list. A single list of notable police officers killed in the line of duty seems quite reasonable, but these lengthy attempts to include every single person who died this way is WP:NOTMEMORIAL and a WP:SALAT issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not memorial. NavjotSR (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philadelphia Police Department officers who died in the line of duty[edit]

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

The reasons for deletion outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officers killed in the line of duty apply equally to this article: Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and this is a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation that fails WP:LISTN. Like that article, this also lacks inline citations and relies on two general references, one to a primary source and the other to an unreliable source based on user-generated content. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a list of people so the relevant guideline to pass is WP:NLIST. Lists which provide navigation or information are usually kept. This list provides information. The death of a police officer is dramatic yet the officer may not merit an individual article, so the list is an appropriate placement. The nomination calls out the lack of references, however items on the list can be referenced they are notable. Additionally the fact that another list of Sherifs was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted - we may find a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Lightburst (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Honolulu Police Department officers killed in the line of duty (2nd nomination): We have a consolidated list for all LEOs killed, and they come from thousands of police and sheriff departments; it is not reasonable to split this out for every or any city. Reywas92^Talk 22:16, 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 15:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Baltimore Police Department officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

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

The reasons for deletion outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officers killed in the line of duty apply equally to this article: Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and this is a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation that fails WP:LISTN. Like that article, this also lacks inline citations and relies on two general references, one to a primary source and the other to an unreliable source based on user-generated content. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a list of people so the relevant guideline to pass is WP:NLIST. Lists which provide navigation or information are usually kept. This list provides information. The death of a police officer is dramatic yet the officer may not merit an individual article, so the list is an appropriate placement. The nomination calls out the lack of references, however items on the list can be referenced they are notable. Additionally the fact that another list of Sherifs was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted - we may find a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Lightburst (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I see no reason not to follow the precedent set by the previous deletion, since all the same arguments apply here. Mangoe (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Honolulu Police Department officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The reasons for deletion outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officers killed in the line of duty apply equally to this article: Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and this is a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation that fails WP:LISTN. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a list of people so the relevant guideline to pass is WP:NLIST. Lists which provide navigation or information are usually kept. This list provides information. The death of a police officer is dramatic yet the officer may not merit an individual article, so the list is an appropriate placement. Additionally the fact that another list of Sherifs was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted - we may find a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (plus delete the other "List of community XYZ officers killed in the line of duty" articles). Besides the reasons mentioned above, this article is but one of the many "deaths when law enforcement is involved" articles. In fact we have two broad types of articles: 1. "killed in the line of duty" (see: List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States) and 2. "killing of XYZ at the hands of law enforcement" (see: List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, December 2012). But in the non-WP real world we have many different types of killing. Or I should say we have many different causes of death. Our WP editing problem is that using the term "killing" (or "killed") is inherently POV. Deleting this article is one step towards a needed NPOV cleanup. – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't list non-notable people who die just because they have a dangerous job. Imagine if we had List of United States Marine Corps personnel killed in the line of duty during World War II or something, ridiculous.★Trekker (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have a consolidated list for all LEOs killed, and they come from thousands of police and sheriff departments; it is not reasonable to split this out for every city. Reywas92^Talk 22:15, 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. Sandstein 19:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elnaaz Norouzi[edit]

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

Actor has done a few films as mentioned in the article but they don't seem to be significant or notable enough work-wise. Has done a few TV shows but has played supporting roles. She lacks in-depth coverage. I think its a bit WP:TOSOON for this page, In my opinion we need a discussion on this if this should stay or not. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 10:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 10:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 10:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, appear to have played some minor roles in major productions and sources are mostly interviews or passing mention - WP:TOOSOON. GSS ^💬 18:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recurring role in two saisons of India's first Netflix original show should be sufficient for notability. --Ganescha (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: User:Ganescha • contribs has made less then 30 edits on this project and their only edit in the past six months have been on this AfD. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 06:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. My main activity is in the German Wikipedia. I just have translated this article into German. As I have experienced the practices in the English Wikipedia are superficially the same but still slightly different. So allow me to add that there is a significant press coverage relevant newspapers (e.g. Hindustan Times). The colourful vita of this actor - born in Teheran, raised in Hanover, now in the Indian film industry - may play a role. --Ganescha (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the role was recurring but the role it self was not a major role as required by WP:NACTOR. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 06:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not enough significant roles to establish this actress as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 03:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wahan Ke Log[edit]

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

My WP:PROD was correctly declined; I had missed the fact that this article had been PRODded before, so here we are. My PROD rationale: Sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a copy of the one-line plot-summary in IMDb, and that was all. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing vote per WP:HEY. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at the GHITS, I can see a few references to it, but nothing from noted RS. There is a listing on IMDB, but there's no reviews of it, doesn't seem to be notable. Scant RS in the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - did my best to expand it. There's quite a decent coverage of the film in books and scholarly press. It turns out to be one of the first sci-fi films made in India. I invite those who voted to delete it to have a look at it. I think it could even be taken to DYK. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been expanded with the use of reliable academic and book sources so that WP:GNG is passed and there is no longer any reason for deletion. Also note that the delete votes were cast before the article was improved, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Indeed, the article was significantly expanded on 14 September 2020‎, which included the addition of fourteen references. Relisting to allow for consideration of those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shahid's recent WP:HEY. The reception section alone now indicates a clear pass of WP:NFILM. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY for Shahid's improvements, well done. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article was improved at AfD. Before AfD, During AfD. Passes our notability guideline Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film received significant coverage. --Gazal world (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I understand the nom's rationale, it clearly now passes WP:NFILM.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (nom). That's more like it! Great WP:RESCUE work by Shshshsh. Narky Blert (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tunisian Combatant Group#European branches. czar 03:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Maaroufi[edit]

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

Some coverage, but WP:1E at best, doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Tunisian Combat Group. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tunisian Combatant Group, not wikinotable beyond this group, but may be a wikireader lookup. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie Briggs[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. No suitable WP:ATD. Username of contribnutor indicates COI; has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence or references are offered to satisfy WP:JOURNALIST. Agree with the tag on the page, reads like some kind of expository essay. No sufficent references given, fails WP:GNG -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Javad Hassan[edit]

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

Biography of a businessman who does not meet the general notability guideline. The sources provided are primary, unreliable and mention the subject briefly and no in-depth significant coverage found in multiple RS. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article does meet the general notability guideline - only businessmen of a certain reputation and stature would be invited to be the commencement speaker at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. As for in-depth significant coverage, the "Those Who Made It" episode is a 20-minute feature on Hassan's life produced by a major Indian television channel Zee TV. The accompanying article on India News also delves specifically into Hassan and his life. Granted some of the sources do not have him as the primary subject, but those sources are intended only to provide evidence for specific details included in the article.
GlobalYouth20 (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a comencement speaker is not in and of itself a sign of notability, we cannot use if for a proxy for actual sourcing and significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 08:10, 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. czar 03:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Research Program[edit]

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

I struggled to find any sourcing that would indicate this program is notable. It consists all of namedrops and passing mentions. There are a lot of programs under similar names. For instance, this seems to be a different program than is cited in the article, as does this and this, but none of them seem to meet WP:GNG. THe trove id contains links to promising sources, but all are offline and seem to have been published before 2006 (when this program was allegedly created). This page was redirected to Western Sydney University by AleatoryPonderings, but I am taking to AFD because I found no indication that the program even merits a mention at that university's page (it currently isn't mentioned there at all). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not opposed to outright deletion, per the detailed nom above. Wanted to note that doi:10.1080/07293682.1998.9657821 also looked promising, but it's apparently about a different institute (unless this one was moved to Western Sydney University circa 2006?) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Different institutions. ANU is in Canberra, Nugget Coombs directed that first program. UWS (now Western Sydney University) is in Parramatta, in a different state, and it is not the same program. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be a promising source, but it's by a professor in the Urban Research Program, so I don't think we can consider it establishing notability, unfortunately. And, yes, I think almost definitely they are different organizations. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' i feel its a good article but when it comes to the content it is short. it should be added so that people don't have to jump between pages to get more informationAuthor Sanju (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient references to establish the program - or any notability at UWS -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yes Minister#Other recurring characters. Tone 10:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Robinson[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a minor character in a TV show. No significant coverage in independent sources found. Sorry, this is not Wikia (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Yes_Minister#Other_recurring_characters per WP:CHEAP, but I'd also be fine with delete since "Arnold Robinson" is quite a common name and there seems no compelling reason to take up the title with a redirect for this minor character. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yes_Minister#Other_recurring_characters. Might as well redirect since there is somewhere to go. Rhino131 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above unless sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but move the content to Yes_Minister#Other_recurring_characters. It's not a minor character.

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Chacko[edit]

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

Asides him being fired for “harassment” I am unable to locate any in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources discussing subject. A before search mostly discusses his “harassment” issues so per WP:BLP1EVENT this doesn’t count for much. Furthermore being a CEO / former CEO doesn’t confer automatic notability. Lastly, sources used in this article are either spam, unreliable, Pr sponsored or aren’t even about subject. In all this is a WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO fail. Celestina007 08:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 08:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 08:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 08:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 08:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, greetings. I've seen pages similar on the subject, and I assume that Chacko fits the subject. Yes, it's not the loudest scandal about Metoomovement or any anti-harassment theme, but it's not worse or better than others. It just exists. Vote for/on the contrary, I don't care, I'm just learning how to contribute to the Wikipedians community. My regards. --Maastricht Treaty (work of student M.Gibson) (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article violates one event notability guidelines. If there person was not notable before they were fired for harassment allegations, getting fired for harassment allegations does not make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. The only source that devotes significant coverage is a press release that he obviously paid for in hopes of getting another job. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to retain this article. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:ANYBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. Not notable outside single event. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Draftify'. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redcoats and Revolutionaries[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NORG guidelines. While references are given, they are mostly passing mentions, or are by members themselves. Some coverage of events they appeared at but not WP:significant coverage. noq (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to fail NORG. Lots of sources but they are mentions in passing or plain unreliable (Facebook etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Rather than delete, I request it is moved into the project draft-space as I think it will be possible to improve in the near future. Blaene (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify article fails GNG and NORG. But since the author requested to work on it in draftspace, its worth giving them the opportunity. // Timothy :: talk 01:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify -- I find it very hard to believe that a society with under 50 members is WP-notable. It might appear in a list of historical re-enactment groups with a link to its own website, but I doubt it would ever be able to get over the notability barrier. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 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 10:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quizizz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous instance was deleted at AfD in September 2018 but now re-created as an editor's first article. JamesG5 placed a PROD notice with the rationale "Having trouble seeing the actual WP:GNG here since basically all the links are press releases from the people fronting it. Also previously deleted. Looks like straight up WP:PROMO." I removed the PROD notice because of the previous AfD but don't disagree with the rationale. The discussion in the previous AfD looks as applicable to this instance, which is again mixing funding announcements and how-to claims, which might suggest WP:G4 could apply. However this instance does reference one study published since the previous AfD, hence this new AfD. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom & my PROD. Honestly I meant to bring it to AfD myself but hit the wrong button. I looked at it when it popped up & between bad refs, obvious promo, and the previous AfD it doesn't seem to belong. JamesG5 (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 08:10, 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 redirect to TsuShiMaMiRe#Live DVDs. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Band wa Mizumono[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TsuShiMaMiRe#Live_DVDs per WP:CHEAP. (Although that section of the main article should probably be merged to TsuShiMaMiRe discography in any event.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TsuShiMaMiRe#Live DVDs: Barely found anything about the live album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquie D'Alessandro[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. A fair number of her books were reviewed in Publishers Weekly (e.g., [23]) and there is a bit more coverage on ProQuest (she was part of a national book tour of a group of romance authors), but I'm not seeing multiple reviews of any given book and Publishers Weekly reviews pretty much everything so I'm reluctant to rely heavily on it. Looks like a failure of WP:NAUTHOR to me. Open to change my !vote if someone finds additional reviews. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An editor (Thinkonthesethings153) claiming to be the subject has requested that this page be deleted in edit comments on the page:
- This page about me was made without my knowledge or consent. I would like to have it completely removed but do not know how to do so. Therefore, I edited out the incorrect/out of date information.
- The rights to these books have reverted to me--the author--they are no longer in print and will not be republished. I do not wish for them to be advertised/named in any way to protect my privacy and religious beliefs.

pburka (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to establish notability whether or not she wants the article deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erum Akhtar[edit]

(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) 06:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Erum has done lead roles in dramas on PTV and ATV channels also Telefilms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs)

Those dramas are not notable. Also, please provide evidence she played lead roles. --Saqib (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are videos in the youtube of the dramas she worked in lead, she is currently doing a lead role in drama umeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs)
Delete being in a drama that was posted to youtube does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She is known for lead roles in dramas on PTV channel, I meant that should i add the video of the drama in which she worked. She has worked with Sami Khan, Ahsan Khan twice and faysal Qureshi and many more. She was known for her lead roles in Yaad Piya Ki Aye and Kaghaz Kay Pool and many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Chiarini[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to the List of unsolved deaths. Tone 07:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of unsolved deaths (before 1900)[edit]

Propose deleting List of unsolved deaths (before 1900) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nominator's rationale: Article is already part of two different articles, those being the List of unsolved deaths and the List of unsolved murders (before the 20th century), so there is no need to have this article. With this article deleted, then surely both of those articles will get more pageviews and edits. [Note: I am nominating at request of Davidgoodheart.] Ad Orientem (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any unique and adequately sourced entries to the List of unsolved deaths. The list appears to be an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. I am ambivalent on whether the list title is a likely search term as opposed to the simpler title of the target. So it might be better to delete the page as opposed to turn into a redirect once the merge is completed. Lastly I note that some of the entries are dubiously sourced and claims that the deaths are actually unsolved may be a stretch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: What about merging to the List of unsolved murders (before the 20th century) as well then? And I agree with you that the list is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK as well. If this article is done away with, then I am all for the creation of a redirect and adding any material from it that can be merged to either article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the deaths listed are murders and frankly the List of unsolved murders (before the 20th century) is probably also an unnecessary content fork. The items on all these lists could probably be condensed into a single list, provided there is adequate RS coverage and those sources generally agree that the death is unsolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect - given the fact that the content fits well into other existing articles. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the List of unsolved deaths. It might get easier to manage such a list after it has been merged adequately. 12:24, 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 15:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Buen[edit]

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

Buen has been 100% cleared in the creation of the ILOVEYOU worm now that the real creator of that worm has confessed and stated that he made it alone. As a result, we now have an entire article that accuses Buen of something that he didn't do. Buen did create a different virus, called Mykl-B, but this virus doesn't appear to be notable. This results in a situation where Buen is only known for something he didn't actually do - as a result, I feel this article should be deleted. Also, as far as I know, Buen is a living person, making these wrong allegations a huge BLP violation.

Before anyone suggests it, I consider a redirect to ILOVEYOU to be entirely inappropriate since Buen had no part in creating that virus. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The very existence of this article serves to tranish the reputation of the indvidual with false accusations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abar Bochhor Tirish Pore[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a single concert that doesn't demonstrate any notability. All sources on a quick Google search link back to this page or resourced copies of this page. The article almost reads as a press release, and is decidedly not encyclopedic, so even if it is worth keeping, it needs an extensive rewrite. fuzzy510 (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 08:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Flick Law Firm[edit]

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

Personal injury law firm that fails WP:NCORP. The awards are not convincing: many, many firms and lawyers are rated in some capacity by Avvo, and being reviewed by the BBB is hardly an award. Parroting Scope_creep here, I'd also call this native advertising. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MILL law firm; only claim is to the pseudo-awards. TJRC (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article reads like promotional literature. Cases contested in court are primary references. Not admissible. Other references are not found, or primary. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete among WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:ADV, I would add that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server. I'd be good with WP:SPEEDY under WP:G11.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete precisely per nom. BD2412 T 15:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a promotional component of a law firm's social media portfolio. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 10:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seahaven, California[edit]

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

Looks like a neighborhood in Inverness, CA. GNIS cites a commercial county map as its reference. Durham doesn't list it. The only references I can find are listings for vacation rentals. Nothing indicates that it is notable. Glendoremus (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to page 143 in this book, it is a subdivision development in Inverness, an unincorporated town of 1300 people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sodor (fictional island)#Rail system history. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Western Railway (fictional)[edit]

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

I prodded this a while back with the usual "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 English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." I notice that it has been deprodded by User:WT79 who added a merge template, but did not complete this by starting a merge discussion. Anyway, all other articles on the fictional railways related to this seem to have been just redirected, not merged, primarily because just like this article here they had next to ne references and were a pure PLOT summary. As such, as suggest that this too is just deleted or redirected, with no merge needed, as there nothing to merge here, it is 100% WP:FANCRUFT, sadly enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 8 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} 05:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: merge is not appropriate for this page. All of the sub-branches of this railway are captured on this page, not their own pages. This page is the relevant page for all the branch railways off this line. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an important and unduplicatable page in Wikipedia's Railroad Series collection. Deletion removes a major piece of the overall topic and, if done well, then merging would overburden the target page and this is one which would have to be merged well. Best to let it exist as a stand-alone. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited. It does not matter how important it's perceived in terms of the plot. When fiction lacks real world information from reliable sources, that fiction is condensed to fit the proper weight in the parent article. There appears to be nothing at all worth merging, so delete and a new redirect seems best. TTN (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with inherited notability, it is a part of the entire Railway Series structure that is itself notable. As for "Nothing at all worth merging", the entire page seems valuable per content. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying it's a justifiable page split in its current state, you're saying it has inherited notability. If you think, despite its current poor state, that there are sources discussing it from a real world perspective, then you'd be asserting that it has potential for improvement. The page in its current state is all plot summary. That is never necessary, and it's pointless to merge such content without sources showing it's worth retaining. It can always be condensed to the most important parts if it lacks the backing of a real world perspective. TTN (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article has been here since February, 2006, and has an average of 41 views a day per the last 90 day average, any major mistakes or misrepresentations would have been caught and edited out by now. It needs a few cites, but I'd think the Railroad has received many mentions in works about The Railway Series and the TV series, and those should be added and will likely show the page accuracy. But the topic is notable, the Railway represents the physical spine of the book and TV series, the tracks which the engines travel along. It is an essential part of the Railway Series universe, and thus a stand-alone subject in no need of inherited notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is an argument as to how this can be made to pass WP:GNG. Your argument could be made about literally any piece of fiction, and it's literally saying this inherits notability. It also fails to meet the standards of WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, given the importance of the topic to the overall subject, this falls under a common sense exception called for at the top of every guideline page. A few edits and context wording could be added, good idea, but lack of that at the moment shouldn't sink a 14-year-old topic-popular page. As for further cites, the railway is likely mentioned under one of its several alternate names in articles covering the book or television series. The alternate "Fat Conductor's Railway" seems a good topic title for a cite search. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you can make that argument about any piece of fiction. There are still hundreds of 2005-era relic fiction articles as well. That nobody has ever cleaned this article space is a sign of stagnation, not stability. You're using an entirely subjective measure of importance on what is a minor topic. This is but one of tens of thousands of notable fictional series. Applying that standard, we'd have hundreds of thousands of such articles. TTN (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though the fiction itself (and the article about it) is notable, this concept is not. There are no third party sources to improve this article to a state that would meet the WP:GNG, which requires significant non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources. A merge would in fact be an okay compromise, after a hefty clean-up to bring the unsourced/primary information into proportion, and even there, the hope would be to eventually improve the sourcing so that it adds to another article, instead of detracting with unsourced and unreliable information. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:39, 14 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 01:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sodor_(fictional_island)#Rail_system_history, where it is mentioned and its in-universe history detailed. Lacks the coverage to demonstrate notability, there's nothing really to merge since the lack of inline citations brings up WP:V issues, but it could be a search term. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sodor_(fictional_island)#Rail_system_history, there is no coverage of this that would cause it to pass GNG, and the article in its current state fails WP:PLOT. There is nothing worth merging, but it is mentioned at the target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TamilMirchi (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Suresh[edit]

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

Article that I created. Only one source exists.^[1] TamilMirchi (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not all the listed references are terrific; on account of the extended filmography, he is clearly a minor actor with some notablity. Give this actor some time, he will get more roles a/c filmography. Keep and add the Tamil actors stub tag. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/kollywood/131018/cool-suresh-turns-hero-and-dons-khaki.html

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Sabesh[edit]

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

Created by a paid user. No sources cover this person in detail. There is no evidence to prove notability. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Who's Who, you do not pay your way in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - severely doubt Karthik Sabesh 'paid his way in'. Neutral Fan (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have appeared in several notable films - some of the sources directly reference who he is. Neutral Fan (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails GNG, BASIC and NACTOR. Sources are mentions, nothing that covers the subject directly and indepth. I did find quite a few mentions in BEFORE, but they were thin, nothing that would add up to meeting BASIC. // Timothy :: talk 19:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the reasoning above. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:30, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbert Ting Tolentino[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. The first AfD was a speedy keep because the nominator gave no rationale for deletion. SL93 (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found only one source using his full name but about fifty English-language sources under just Wilbert Tolentino including a few full-length magazine articles, more than enough to write a good article on the subject. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Consider this withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfied. Since this was tagged, I went ahead and moved it to your userspace at User:Hitcher vs. Candyman/Tyson's Run. I'll move the other one to User:Hitcher vs. Candyman/The Diary (upcoming film). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson's Run[edit]

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

I admit I created this article, but I also admit it was created WP:TOOSOON. See also WP:NYF. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7 tagged The only other edits outside yours were bots, so I say this can easily be uncontested as author-requested deletion (though if you want to keep a draft in your userspace to move over for when it does get released, definitely feel free do to that). Also don't beat yourself up, you (and everyone else) didn't know in 2018 what would end up happening in 2020 🙍🏻. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hitcher vs. Candyman: Do you want me to move this along with The Diary into your userspace? --ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Feel free to userfy—no one said where, though. czar 03:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Diary (upcoming film)[edit]

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

I admit I created this article, but I also admit it was created WP:TOOSOON. See also WP:NYF. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to userfy this, but since there were others who edited the article I wanted to make sure that there were no objections first since this wasn't tagged. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it can't be speedy deleted per user request since others have added to the article, but I think Userfy would be a good option. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy is fine with me. I do not object to ReaderofthePack’s proposal. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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