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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 00:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dietmar Streitler[edit]

Dietmar Streitler (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)

• Delete Not enough notability. It's got one source about one thing that happened, and nothing else. If this is a notable sentence, the article itself isn't notable enough. Le Panini (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This passes WP:NOLYMPICS - Simeon (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Simeon, the subject passed WP:NOLY--☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 09:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a straight-up pass of WP:NOLYMPICS. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Olympians are notable. Also, took two minutes to expand to include appearances at two World Championships and a European Championships. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 10:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable wrestler. Passes WP:NOLYMPICS. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep It's pretty clear this passes WP:NOLYMPICS and as such the article has almost zero chance of being delete. That said, I can understand where the nominator is coming from with the lack of sourcing. It's unfortunate that the notability guidelines about athletes aren't stricter about it, personally I don't think every single Olympian in history should automatically notable, but they are what they are. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He obviously meets WP:NOLYMPICS. While I do agree with Adamant1 that I've seen articles that meet WP:NOLYMPICS that seem to fail to meet WP:GNG, I don't think a 5th place Olympic finish can be ignored. I don't feel the same about someone who comes in 78th. Papaursa (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Delete. Per discussion below, it seems safe to presume they satisfy WP:GNG and/or WP:SPORTSBASIC. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have pretty high standards if you believe finishing 5th at the Olympics does not meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. I would claim it's a more significant achievement that playing in a pro soccer game or one MLB game. Papaursa (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa I find it difficult to compare these two, as a player in a professional soccer team participates in multiple games over many years, whereas an olympic is a few months. If you literaly meant one game, I'd definitely vote to delete them if notability was temporary and restricted to the game they participated in. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's also important to remember that he competed before the internet and it's quite likely that there was significant coverage of him in Austria over the years when he was a competitor at various European and world championships, as well as at the Olympics. Papaursa (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa That makes sense, per WP:NEXIST. Your arguments, and my further investigation of the notability guidelines, convinced me. I changed my vote. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 18:03, 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 Zee TV#International channels. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Bollynova[edit]

Zee Bollynova (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The channel exists [1]. That's all there is to say about it. Can't justify keeping this as a standalone perma-stub. - hako9 (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would a TV channel normally warrant its own page? I guess if there is no RS for it, probably not? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per rationale by hako9. Celestina007 (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Zee TV#International channels per WP:BCAST.--Ab207 (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Zee TV#International channels: per Ab207. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Zee TV#International channels I'm sure the reason why is obvious. Since it's been said already by other people. so, I'll spare everyone by not needlessly reiterating it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Zee TV#International channels. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:26, 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. Also salted. BD2412 T 02:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jena Kraus[edit]

Jena Kraus (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)

Unsourced BLP of a subject who appears to fail WP:NSINGER. This article was merged into Blind Melon in 2006 because Kraus contributed to some of the band's songs, but I am unable to find adequate sourcing to support even a merge. I don't think a redirect to Blind Melon would make much sense either. So I propose deletion instead. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. I suppose it could be (minimally) merged or redirected to Soup, their album. Few RS, and they're all very small mentions of her duet on Soup (to be fair, the duet is praised). Caro7200 (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article has zero reliable sources which is totally unacceptable for an article on a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No effective sources and no available sources. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National Academy of Arts of Ukraine. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Art Research Institute of Ukrainian Academy of Arts[edit]

Modern Art Research Institute of Ukrainian Academy of Arts (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)

NCORP fail. A redirect to its parent organization, the National Academy of Arts of Ukraine, would make sense, however that article has problems as well as it is unsourced. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Per nom. Acebulf (talk) 02:00, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atulya Shetty[edit]

Atulya Shetty (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)

Notability concerns. Doesn't meet WP:NCHESS. The references are to chess databases and local Ann Arbor news sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I've looked and indeed it seems to be local coverage of the "Michigan's strongest player" type. He doesn't seem to meet the GNG. As an International Master he plays chess to a very strong standard, but still he is only 1396th in the world among active players. -- P-K3 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines for chess players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being that low in the rankings and the only sources being local doesn't cut it for WP:NCHESS. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm barking uphill, but sources are decent, if very local. Meets the letter of WP:N, but probably not the spirit. Hobit (talk) 23:32, 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 06:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THENEXTART[edit]

THENEXTART (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)

Unsourced, cannot find any indication of notability. AviationFreak💬 23:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 23:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 23:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, atleast per WP:GNG no significant coverage. Also did not have any significant publication for which it may be considered notable. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 18:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Makris[edit]

Thomas Makris (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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Zindor (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements. Just seems like an index, which one of the sources actually is. Le Panini (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, lots of sources available, see this Google News search to get an idea. (Note: I have left some advice for Le Panini concerning AfDs at their user talk page). Fram (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL, nominator has clearly not done a BEFORE search. GiantSnowman 10:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep There looks like there are sources to improve the article, this should be done, otherwise this is still a WP:GNG issue. Govvy (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Since he played in a professional league and therefore passes the notability guidelines for athletes. That said, I don't blame the nominator for the nomination. As the sourcing is pretty mediocre. Even what comes up in Google search. It's not just about results per WP:AADD. I don't think messaging the nominator on their talk page and telling to take a break from AfDs was warranted either. Hopefully Le Panini will ignore it and continue participating. If that means doing more nominations or just voting. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article about former professional footballer who played in more than 60 matches in the Greek top division, and played in the UEFA Cup (first round and group stage). Passes WP:NFOOTBALL and there are many Greek-language sources available to improve the article if someone has the time to translate them. Jogurney (talk) 15:12, 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dushyant[edit]

Dushyant (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)

• Appears to be a non-notable poet. Article was created by an SPA that also created the now-deleted article for his wife. —valereee (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can the nominator please say what the reason for deleting this is? What is wrong with the sources in the article and what other sources, not in the article, ought to be considered? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Mccapra, well, that's weird! How did I do that? Thanks! —valereee (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please see my contribution below:) Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, looking at the references - 1: LC entry, 2: youtube , 3: amazon sales site , 4: penguin publishing site , 5: BBC India article specifically states not best or bestseller, includes a recommendation of One Night of July (July Ki Ek Raat), 6: publisher site, 7: own website, interview of Dushyant, 8: advert, meet the author, 9: dushyant bio/publicity page, 10: excerpt from translated book, 11: see no. 7, 12: one of 100+ spearkers at a literary festival, 13: took part in a poetry festival, 14: took part in a poetry festival (one of over 70), 15: news article(?) discussing up and coming Dushyant ("Success comes with the combination of profession and passion, know how to get recognition in Bollywood"), 16: youtube, 17: founded a film festival, 18: IMDB listing, 19: IMDB listing, 20: IMDB listing, 21: Amazon listing, 22: publishing site listing, 23: Amazon listing, 24: Amazon listing; all of these reflect the "bread and butter" of people in the literary field, none of these contribute to the wikinotableness of Dushant, so it is a delete from me as not meeting WP:CREATIVE. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I’ve attempted to search for RIS in Hindi but did not find anything. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moriah Mills[edit]

Moriah Mills (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)

Contested prod, but meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep meets WP:GNG between multiple notable professional roles and awares. Dr. Vetter (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per wp:gng and wp:entertainer ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 18:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing is too low level and routine to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per wp:gng and wp:entertainer. Shameran81 (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is negligible coverage of her in genuine independent reliable sources. The coverage that exists is in promotional porn trade publications and "big breast" fetish publications. Neither group of publications have a reputation for accuracy required for establishing notabilty. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources covering this person are too low in quality to support WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO notability. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the only coverage is in unreliable sources, meaning she fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh Dil Kisko Doon[edit]

Yeh Dil Kisko Doon (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)

An article about a Bollywood film. The reference is to a listings site. The WP:EL is to IMDb, which is not WP:RS. WP:BEFORE searches for "Yeh Dil Kisko Doon" and "Ye Dil Kisko Doon" (the title on the poster) turned up more listings sites, but nothing even as thorough as the IMDb 4-line plot summary. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Improved the article with WP:RS available online. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per The9Man, now it may be considered passing wp:nfilm ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 18:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nom. The new sources are passing mentions in articles about actors, singers and composers. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. We need WP:RS sources about the film itself, not about something else. Narky Blert (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There may not be individual significant coverage about this film in online, as is the case with the most of Indian films in the 50's, 60's and 70's. But the information mentioned in the article can be verified from the reliable sources mentioned. This is a film done by a major actor from the 1960s. It's harsh to expect to have significant and individual online references. There is no particular need to be so stringent on the old classics and just delete it. As an encyclopedia, our aim should be to add and improve the information rather than just remove it altogether. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Crescenti[edit]

Alberto Crescenti (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)

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

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

• 111. Terrorist Attack to the AMIA (Jewish Mutual Society of Argentina) Headquarters Building. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 10(S2), S16-S16. doi:10.1017/S1049023X00500296
• Helicopter Emergency Medical Services in Buenos Aires: An Operational Overview, Air Medical Journal, Volume 37, Issue 6, 2018, Pages 367-370, ISSN 1067-991X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amj.2018.07.029.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Pope[edit]

DJ Pope (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)

G11 declined by another editor because it was not really exclusively promotional. Not a field where I know enough to judge notability, so I'm sending it here to afd for a community decision. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep? Having a hard time deciding where I come down here; possibly delete is better. I don't think it looks terribly promotional. Keep rationale: reasonable (though not great) sourcing in the article, repeatedly called the right-hand man of J Balvin, one of the biggest stars in reggaeton. BUT the available sources are surprisingly thin for someone who is repeatedly called the right-hand man of one of the biggest stars in reggaeton. It seems like the article covers sources I identified using google, and I would expect that coverage of DJ Pope should be available online if anywhere (J Balvin hasn't been around very long). J Balvin has been releasing a ton of music lately, and you'd think if DJ Pope were important that he'd be mentioned in more news articles. Maybe reggaeton DJs aren't terribly important because every song uses the same underlying beat! :D Anyways, my 2 cents. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Calliopejen1: and others reading this discussion... the problem is that being the "right-hand man" and DJ of a world-famous reggaeton star is a bit like being the drummer or backing singer for a world-famous rock star... nobody really talks about you except in passing and usually only when they are talking about that famous star, so it's a bit of a WP:INHERITED fame. However, I will say that the sources are mostly reliable: El Tiempo and El Espectador are two of the three most important newspapers in the country, Shock is long-established and Colombia's biggest music magazine (previously published in print form, but now entirely online), and W Radio is a recognised and popular national radio station. With this in mind, I'm inclined to keep the article, but it is a weak keep, and I have no strong opinion about it. Richard3120 (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Richard3120: You certainly make a good point, but it is worth noting that many/most of the sources (including at least one each from El Tiempo, El Espectador, Shock, and W Radio) are primarily about Pope, and don't merely discuss him in relation to J Balvin. I do know the article has some issues, though, and as the editor who moved it to mainspace and has done a good deal of work on it, I'll refrain from taking a formal stance on deletion. Noahfgodard (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Noahfgodard: indeed they are specifically about him, hence my leaning to keeping the article, although I can say that DJ Pope is far from a household name even in Colombia. But as someone who has lived in the country for over a decade, I just wanted to state that I know the sources themselves to be reliable ones, because they may not be familiar to English-speaking editors – the editors can then decide for themselves whether their content is good enough to establish notability. Richard3120 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Richard3120: Right, I just wanted to make sure that was pointed out. Thanks very much for sharing your expertise. Noahfgodard (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - The DJ is not exactly getting strong endorsements here, but I find "weak keep" to be a valid vote per the comments above. It is true that the DJ is usually only mentioned in relation to his boss, and anything exclusively about him tends to be very short. But as Richard3120 found, this has taken place in reliable publications, and the DJ really has gotten some specific coverage for his record company and charity efforts, as seen in the final four or five footnotes currently in the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoros Modis[edit]

Theodoros Modis (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)

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Article does meet WP:1E. I looked for a suitable redirect target for the event, but couldn't find one. Content is unsourced so a merge is inappropriate, if the information was sourced, it could be merged into Theodore Modis or Yorgo Modis, but sourcing would be essential because these are BLPs.   // Timothy :: talk  21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added five references and a link to another language page. Will that do it? Coachaxis (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Coachaxis: Two of your references (and an external youtube link) have been removed [2], because there were not reliable sources. The main question is the following: besides blogs and e-mails [3] (!), are there any reliable sources to support the claim that "His assassination signaled the beginning of armed conflicts in Monastiri referred to as the Macedonian Struggle" ? Douglas Dakin in his classic The Greek struggle in Macedonia doesn't mention him at all. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  All three references support this claim. The last two are in Greek but the first is in English. You can get some idea in several paragraphs at the end of the kindle sample of Fortune Favors the Bold by Theodore Modis in Amazon.com describing his initiating armed involvement in 1903. The official beginning of the Macedonian Struggle is 1904. Therefore I made the above statement. I have slightly modified it now. Coachaxis (talk)

  @Coachaxis: Theodore Modis' book: i) Is not a third-party, independent source. ii) It's not a secondary academic source, a historian's account, but fiction, based as it seems on some evidence or eyewitnesses' testimonies known to the author, written by a famaily member who holds "a Ph.D. in High Energy Physics". So, there is no in-depth coverage of the subject by relable sources (so far). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  PS. Your contributions to WP are related almost exclusively to several members of the Modis family. Do you have any relationship with them, because this looks like conflict of interest ? ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I am not at all related to the Modis family but I was fascinated by Modis’s book Fortune Favors the Bold. So when I came across the page of Theodoros Modis in the Bulgarian Wikipedia I thought that he deserved an entry in the English Wikipedia. It is true that the author of Fortune Favors the Bold is a physicist but I trust his sources, which include two bona-fide historians: his uncle Georgios Modis who has published dozens of books on the Macedonian Struggle, and Stamatis Raptis who published historical books on the subject as early as 1909, all in Greek. Both historians treat the assassination of Theodoros Modis as one of the important violent acts at the beginning of the Macedonian Struggle, which influenced the tone of my original text. Of course, Modis was not as important as Pavlos Melas, but they were both killed within a month from each other and their wives commiserated (there is a letter from Modis’s wife to Melas’s wife in the Greek edition of Fortune Favors the Bold that I just read.) If you find that my modified text still overstates things, you can edit it; or delete the page altogether if you think that it brings no real value. Coachaxis (talk)

  Thank you for the answer Coachaxis. It's not a matter of bringing "real value", but whether this "value" is based -in accordance with WP's policy- on third-party, independent (from the subject) reliable secondary sources or not -like a book or an essay by an academic historian, or by a well-known, reliable researcher etc. Georgios Modis was both related to Theodoros, and "a participant in the Macedonian Struggle", so his writtings are primary sources actually, perhaps valuable to historians, but not scholarly accounts. And Raptis' pamphlet <book> on the Macedonian Struggle is not a trully historical essay, but a very early "journalistic" approach, propagandistic, with no sources or references cited, more of a narration for the "wider" Greek public, than a proper historical account. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the clarifications Chalk19. I understand and appreciate the high standards of WP’s requirements for documentation, but how often are they held to the letter? I’ve seen too many entries with much lesser documentation that the page we are discussing. In my opinion, if someone has fought in the Macedonian Struggle and has extensively documented it in publications, he can be considered a reliable reference when he talks about those who died during that conflict, even if it concerns a relative of his. As for the reference by Raptis that I give, I wouldn’t call it a “pamphlet” because it is a formidable volume of 943 pages full of names, events, authentic photographs, and other documents; you can download it here: https://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/metadata/2/f/8/metadata-475-0000014.tkl. Granted he wrote in the language and the style of the time, i.e. archaic Greek and patriotic expressions. I’ll go along with “early journalism”, but calling it propaganda is taking sides. No historian is absolutely impartial, and some are less so than others. Finally, I also know that WP’s primary concern is objectivity and non-biased reporting, and for the sparse objective information given on this short page, I consider the quoted references as entirely adequate. Let your conscious be your guide when you decide on the fate of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachaxis (talk • contribs) 11:26, 21 September 2020 {UTC) (UTC)

  You're right, it's not a pamphlet like I thought in the first place. It is still a "story", with supposedly accurate dialogues among the participants etc. Anyway, I am not going to decide on any article's fate ! ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  PS. Prof. Dakin in his abovementioned book he is once referring to Raptis' book, and notes about the very misleading account given by [him] while dealing with a subject in chapt. I. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dakin can not be referring to Theodoros Modis because Raptis treats him in Chapters B and Γ.

  Dakin, as I have allready said in my very first comment (08:14, 19 September 2020), doesn't mention Th. Modis at all; it has to do with Raptis, his book as a reliable source, not Modis. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for all your inputs Chalk19. Unfortunately, new demands on my time do not permit me to continue this discussion. Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachaxis (talk • contribs) 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep As a conclusion of my above comments, and the addition of sources to the article. Although some of these sources are not what we may call suitable bibliography, some hints of notability emerge. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:14, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ermengarde of Nevers[edit]

Ermengarde of Nevers (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)

The article is sourced only to a 20th-century genealogical publication. Being part of a long genealogy of notable people does not make one notable. She seems to have held no position of power or government, and notability is not inherited from either her father or her son. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. This article dates back to 2004, a time when Wikipedia had virtually no inclusion criteria, and was essentially a free-for all wild west of mass article creation. With this article having existed for 16 years, you find it in a lot of Wikipedia mirrors, and she shows up on multiple genealogical sites like Family Search and Ancestry, although in the user created databases and not in the primary records places, at least not on my initial search. Ancestry and Family Search rarely produce records that would actually show notability. Just because we know someones name, who they married, and who their child was does not make them notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No effective referencing. There is no real sources, if there were refs they would be there. The Gbook stuff is the same, marriage, passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 08:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED, no indication of independent notability. Agricolae (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Pawlitza[edit]

Laurie Pawlitza (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)

previously successfully PROD'd and recreated. The subject does not pass WP:GNG. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. There are some hits in trade publications (e.g., [4], [5]) and she seems like a recognized authority in adoption law (see [6]), but I don't think I see enough coverage for WP:BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I mean. . . I would assume most lawyers are "recognized authority" in at least something within their practice expertise, but that's different from notable. When they're running "problem solver" type shows on TV, journalist call up professionals in the relevant field all the time, and many gladly oblige without compensation for publicity. Graywalls (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If it was only trade journals. However, there is a lot of passing mentions, in the context of her profession. There is no real coverage that would satisfy WP:SIRS, WP:SIGCOV. For examples she is mentioned in many papers as Laurie Pawlitza, a lawyer for three of the lesbian couple, said Laurie Pawlitza, family lawyer, Laurie Pawlitza, partner at Torkin Manes LLP in Toronto and on and on. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:22, 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flory, Missouri[edit]

Flory, Missouri (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)

The State Historical Society describes Flory as Flory, a small trading-point in the extreme western side of Dade County, was named by C.E. Elliff, owner of the store, for Jo Flory who was a republican candidate for Governor of Missouri in 1900. The use of "the store" seems to imply this was just a store. The GNIS entry is sourced to that exact statement, and claims it's on the Jerico Springs topos, but it's not. Neither Google maps nor the national geographic map database know where Flory is. The coverage I'm turning up is almost entirely in the string "Miss Josephine Flory, Missouri University." I'm not seeing any way this meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG here. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep valid stub about a rural trading point. If not kept, merge with township in which Flory is located.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could find no results for this supposed community in newspapers.com. Not a valid stub: trading posts are not notable unless there's substantive coverage on them. Hardly necessary to say in the township article "people have bought and sold goods in various places throughout history in this jurisdiction!" Reywas92^Talk 03:56, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Fitz[edit]

Eric Fitz (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)

non-notable behind the scene filming personnel. "Miscellaneous Crew" fails WP:ANYBIO WP:GNG Graywalls (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable person involved in filmmaking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can source it properly. To be fair, he actually does have a strong notability claim as a Genie Award nominee for Best Overall Sound — but as written, until I fixed it just now the article was misrepresenting that as a win that he doesn't actually have (the winner that year in his category was Eastern Promises, not Shake Hands with the Devil), which also leaves the accuracy of the rest of the article in question if we can't find sources to actually support any of that content. But I can't, as I get just eight hits on his name in ProQuest, of which four are not verifiably about this Eric Fitz as they contain no content linking the person they're mentioning to music or film at all; three are just the Genie nominations list and thus add up to one useful source rather than three; one is verifiably him, but just briefly soundbites "Toronto film technician Eric Fitz" in the context of shopping for bargains at Creeds' closing-out sale rather than actually doing anything noteworthy; and zero of them verify anything about The Party's Over, Urban Scorch, Fifth Column, Dieppe, Blue Murder or the Gemini Award claims. And even the Alone and Gone book named in the article text as the "source" for his membership in The Party's Over is a self-published book from a print on demand house, not a notability-clinching (or even particularly reliable) source in and of itself. So, yes, delete, but it's not a notability problem — the notability is there in theory, because nominations for major film and television awards are a solid notability claim for film crew in principle, but the article's content has a serious verifiability problem not helped by the fact that it's spent nearly a decade containing the verifiably false claim that he won a Genie Award instead of just being nominated for it. I am, of course, also willing to reconsider this if somebody can fix the verifiability issues by finding better sources than I've been able to. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 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. And salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Pharmaceuticals[edit]

Synergy Pharmaceuticals (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)

Another run of the mill pharmacy company, which has already been deleted at AfD once. Though a lot of copyvio and puffery has been cleaned up, I still think this is unsalvageable as an encyclopedia article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per nom. Time for this article to be … ahem … voided. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: a heavily promotional page: the article as it stands has absolutely nothing which would pass WP:CORPDEPTH and I can't find anything online to rectify this. The fact that it has been recreated so soon after being deleted suggests a likelihood of it happening again. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: per nom - sources fail to show company is notable. Editing history smells of UPE from the creator's editing history. Ravensfire (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: I nominated it for speedy as promotional, which was converted into this AFD, I think this should be Deleted and Salted. thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It should be deleted because it looks too promotional. Wikipedia is against "soapbox". Rdp060707 (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, per nom - piling on, there isn't any CORPDEPTH sourcing that would allow us to write a proper article, I'm not seeing how it passes NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - perennially recreated, always spam/promotional. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - I think this article is definitely promotional. Looking at the deletion log for this page, I can tell that this is a recreate. User3749 (talk) 11:51, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season[edit]

2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season (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)

Playing in a semi-pro/amateur league means that this fails WP:NSEASONS. I can't see anything to suggest this passes WP:GNG either. Spiderone 20:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 21:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 08:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:08, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satra Ko Shaadi Hai[edit]

Satra Ko Shaadi Hai (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)

Unreleased film, tagged since 2014 as non notable. No evidence that it will ever be released. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability; can always create this again if it ever does get released Spiderone 16:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an unreleased film without enough significant coverage in reliable sources at this pre-release stage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 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. WP:CSD A9 also applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Us: The Ultimate Love Story[edit]

About Us: The Ultimate Love Story (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)

I can't find any evidence that this album has met any of the criteria listed at WP:NALBUMS. It appears to be self-released, and beyond the archived review cited in the article (which doesn't look like a reliable source), has not received any media coverage that I could find. I would suggest redirecting to Bilal (British singer) as an AfD, but I'm not optimistic that his page will survive its own AfD discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable EP by a non-notable singer Spiderone 20:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. A self-released EP given away for free doesn't inspire confidence that this is notable. The two sources simply replicate the same obvious press release. As the nominator states, the article for the artist himself seems likely to be deleted at AfD, so a redirect would be pointless. Richard3120 (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator suggested would happen, the artist's article has now been deleted as non-notable. There is therefore no possible redirect target for this article, and it may now qualify for speedy deletion. Richard3120 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel crossovers[edit]

List of Disney Channel crossovers (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)

Just like the now-deleted article on crossovers from Nickelodeon from last month, this article is yet another example of WP:FANCRUFT dominating Wikipedia as this article also has had multiple issues dating back 10 years. Pahiy (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fancruft. Not encyclopedic.   // Timothy :: talk  05:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This would be better material for a Disney-related Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Spiderone 15:47, 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 06:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Hussain (singer)[edit]

Ismail Hussain (singer) (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)

The subject seems to fail wp:musicbio, wp:gng. A try to save the article via wp:before did not make it otherwise. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: No notability concerns, it appears to be notable. It contains good sources as well. Empire AS ^Talk! 08:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Empire AS (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

• Keep: It should be kept, and since the article has been enlarged, and has reliable and fine sources, it should be kept, Thank you. Tahaaleem (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Tahaaleem (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
• Delete lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and most of the current sources are not even reliable. Too soon and fails WP:MUSICBIO. GSS ^💬 08:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; No notability concerns (appearing in major UK newspapers), All claims are verifiable by independent sources (releasing 1st album at age of 12 from Apple Music Store) and doesn't contain original research (LwdBell (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)) — Note to closing admin: LwdBell (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. and made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

FYI this piece by the The Yorkshire Post is an interview which can't be used for notability and I have no idea if asianexpress.co.uk is even a reliable source per WP:RS. GSS ^💬 10:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused of Canvassing by GSS. I've only placed 3 messages on the talk pages of 3 editors who contributed to the article after creation and also requested input from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam as this article falls under Wikiproject Islam. Nothing else was done to get accused of Canvassing(LwdBell (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

In addition the links to independent, reliable, 3rd party sources including newspapers have been vandalized by GSS on the original page. (LwdBell (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

You asked three users to save this page from deletion and posted a message on the WikiProject Islam for the same and that is canvassing. GSS ^💬 12:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really canvassing. See WP:APPNOTE, which says that you can notify the users about the discussion who are major contributors to the article. The editors on which you have shown canvassing concerns, had already edited the article and informing such users is appropriate. So, how is it canvassing? Can you explain? Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 05:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is defiantly a case of canvancing. The creator didn't asked you to review the page but to litterly vote on the AfD as per this comment "Hello, An article you recently edited (Ismail_Hussain_(singer)) has been nominated for deletion. Please support to keep it alive" and your vote came just half an after they commented on your talk page. GSS ^💬 05:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I admit the creator didn't ask me to review it be because they knew that I had already contributed. What I replied then was "AfD depends on community comments. Therefore, to obtain the keep comments, we'd have to improve it further. I'm trying to improve it and you should also with reliable sources." Therefore, I improved the article further by adding refs from music.apple.com and voted keep here (just half an after). In this all situation, I don't see that the creator is trying to canvass. Now it's your turn. Empire AS ^Talk! 10:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete small time, young singer who has attracted just very local and niche attention.--Mvqr (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet inclusion requirements wp:musicbio, wp:gng, or WP:ANYBIO. Despite assertions from those canvassed, does not have sufficient, in depth coverage cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." As has already been stated, the sources are inadequate. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And let us not forget the WP:AUTOBIO angle on this. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC) striking my own weirdness --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — subject of article lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources hence article isn’t mainspace worthy at the moment. The sheer lack of character and bad faith edits is indicative of a vested interest/ strong conflict of interest. Celestina007 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 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 06:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Sairam[edit]

Dave Sairam (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)

The subject seemed to have several passing mention but no significant coverage per wp:sigcov. Neither satisfy WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:NACADEMIC. WP:BEFORE did not fetch anything otherwise. The article is written mostly on sources unknown! ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please note that this should be the second nomination. The article was previously deleted at AfD. See, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siaram Dave. --Gazal world (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This deserve speedy deletion. Lack of notability. Previously deleted article. --Gazal world (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The previous article was deleted because it was created without the proper information. In fact, the person is Notable and I added more references and can help you with all citations required. A couple of his Articles and Poems are included in books by the state government. Also, he shared a stage with Kirtidan Dan Gadhvi and Kinjal Dave to perform for Trump at Ahmedabad.Wikilanemak (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC) ^[1][reply]
• Delete Most text in article is not referenced. Other references have either passing mentions or news about his book releases. He is a known face but still lack WP:SIGCOV.-Nizil (talk) 06:45, 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. Sandstein 16:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Handley, Vernon County, Missouri[edit]

Handley, Vernon County, Missouri (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)

State Historical Society calls it a shipping point on the MKT railroad built for the convience of a single person, J. W. Handley. Old topos show a single building that was on the railroad, which disappears once the railroad does. This was never an actual community, and fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Old topos show the characteristic sign of a passing siding/station, now long gone. Obviously not a town. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could not find any results for this place in newspapers.com Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with township in which Handley was located.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no need to merge. It's a WP:MILL railroad siding. We aren't a directory of everything that has ever existed. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:22, 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 speedy keep. The consensus of experienced editors is that further discussion here is not appropriate. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Martin[edit]

Dale Martin (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)

Seems to be a leading English language New Testament scholar but can't find a whole lot of WP:SIGCOV for him in secondary sources, nor does it seem like it can be expanded beyond a stub Prisencolin (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Subject clearly passes WP: PROF #5 as holding a named chair (at Yale, no less). StAnselm (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per StAnselm; borderline speedy per WP:CSK #3. I have a bit of trouble believing that WP:BEFORE was done, since a seconds-long search led me to [7], which confirms that he was the Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies and [8], which confirms that he is an elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks to meet WP:NPROF fairly easily per above. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Nomination does not even appear to consider whether he passes WP:PROF, which he obviously does. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PROF doesn't supersede WP:GNG though. If this subject is in fact notable, the article should surely be expanded beyond a stub.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Prisencolin: Technically maybe but in spirit you are completely incorrect here. You could equally well say that WP:GNG doesn't supersede WP:PROF. Neither one supersedes the other in the same sense that Canadian law doesn't supersede US law or vice versa — both are applicable in their own areas. GNG and PROF both have equal footing as notability guidelines that apply to different articles. One of the very first things that WP:PROF says is "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines ... and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". And being a stub is not even close to being a valid reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terry, Missouri[edit]

Terry, Missouri (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)

State Historical Society calls it "Terry Post Office." The old topos either have nothing there, or have an isolated school named "Kings Prairie School" at the site. Newer topos call it a post office. Clearly a WP:GEOLAND fail. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Pretty clearly a 4th class PO mislabelled as a town. Mangoe (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per User: Mangoe.Knox490 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or merge with township in which Terry was located.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of a town. Fails WP:GEOLAND. KidAd talk 04:19, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vedant Birla[edit]

Vedant Birla (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)

Biography of a businessman who does not meet WP:GNG. He's the chairman of Birla Precision and the son of the renowned businessman Yashovardhan Birla. However, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and there needs to be significant coverage in multiple WP:RS. A WP:BEFORE search does not reveal much. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No coverage and what references they're are, are self-published or fail WP:SPIP. scope_creep^Talk 20:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero evidence of notability; not inherited from family that he comes from Spiderone 08:11, 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) 16:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Stockport County F.C. season[edit]

2012–13 Stockport County F.C. season (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS Spiderone 16:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG/NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Govvy (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 08:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:08, 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. 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. Fenix down (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Rioclarense[edit]

Derby Rioclarense (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)

Appears to fail WP:NRIVALRY; the one reference is a dead link and the Portuguese language version doesn't have anything better. I can't find any significant coverage of this supposed rivalry on a Google search. Spiderone 16:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:16, 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. Fenix down (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 Darlington F.C. season[edit]

2010–11 Darlington F.C. season (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS Spiderone 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG/NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 08:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:09, 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 keep. Tone 06:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ketterman, Missouri[edit]

Ketterman, Missouri (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)

State Historical Society calls it a post office; doesn't appear on pre-GNIS topos (nor on the most recent topo). Only coverage I can find is passing mentions, mostly related to a nearby cemetery. Appears to fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Quite a few results on newspapers.com dating to that era for people from there and some goings-on there. I have corrected the article which incorrectly said it "is" a community, but there are no results for the last many decades. Reywas92^Talk 18:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Reywas92.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:53, 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Kammerer[edit]

Doug Kammerer (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)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I found this article (part 1 part 2) that I think is somewhat in depth. But everything else I found is weird gossip type stuff like this. Other than that, I see nothing else that satisfies WP:GNG.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say that this article qualifies as biographical by a secondary source. [9] Fbdave (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cited an interview with Kammerer, so it is a primary source. Magnolia677 (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, with interviews it can go either way. On one hand, you're correct that anything the interviewee says is primary. On the other hand, the fact that a notable publication is giving a somewhat lengthy interview to this person should indicate some level of notability. In this case, the interview seems more like an easy, surface level interview and therefore shouldn't really be used as an indicator of notability.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 08:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this article: [10] Fbdave (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to being notable. No, interviews are not in any way a source that adds toward passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 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 delete.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raney, Missouri[edit]

Raney, Missouri (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)

State Historical society calls it a post office in a rural store. GNIS gives it a census code of U6, which means it doesn't have the legal recognition necessary to pass WP:GEOLAND. Topos show a maximum of three buildings near the site over the years. Search for WP:GNG-bringing coverage comes up empty. Not notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lots of newspapers.com results for people by this name, none for this place (searched with "St Clair"). Reywas92^Talk 18:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep valid article about a rural settlement, even if the population was very small.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:55, 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copeland, Missouri[edit]

Copeland, Missouri (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)

The usual State Historical Society page calls it "Copeland Post Office". It doesn't appear on the 1894 topo; the next small-scale topo is 1960, and it's not on that one. In fact, it doesn't appear on small to medium scale topos until 2011, after it was entered into GNIS. The topos it does appear on marks it as a post office. Not a community, fails WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• delete The GNIS source is our old friend, "New World War Chart (a map of Missouri)", which is quite a bad sign. Not indication that this wss anything beyond a post office. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with township in which Copeland is located.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why? Generally, !votes in a deletion discussion should include some semblance of a statement as to why the proposed action is appropriate? Hog Farm _Bacon 20:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe, Missouri[edit]

Chloe, Missouri (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)

The State Historical Society piece linked in the article calls it "Chloe Post Office". The post office supposedly closed in 1940, and a 1941 topo shows one building at the site, presumably the office. The three houses and two or three barns that appear a little bit south of the site decades later do not appear to be related to Chloe. Fails WP:GEOLAND as a post office, not a community, and does not pass WP:GNG, since there appear to be no sources that give more than two sentences to this place. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Clearly just a post office. Mangoe (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with township in which Chloe was located.03:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.7.25 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ mazca ^talk 17:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian American Sport & Culture Association[edit]

Iranian American Sport & Culture Association (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)

delete: WP:CONFLICT, WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTE.-- Editor7798 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Summer Biathlon Championships[edit]

Norwegian Summer Biathlon Championships (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)

Biathlon is an Olympic winter sport. The summer version of it, and on a national level, are not notable. Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This championship doesn't appear to have received a lot of coverage even locally -- there's routine coverage such as dates and results, but nothing in depth that I could find. Probably everything else in the category should be deleted as well. Paisarepa 22:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: the category: I fully agree! Geschichte (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Brooks[edit]

Dan Brooks (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)

WP:BLP of a politician, notable only for having briefly been the leader of a minor political party without legislative representation. As always, this is not an automatic notability guarantee under WP:NPOL -- the key to making a person notable for something like this is to write a substantive and well-sourced article that demonstrates the significance of his leadership, not just to verify that he existed as a political party leader. But of the seven footnotes here, one is his own self-written content on his own self-published website, and two are just reduplicated repetitions of two of the other four -- so there are really only four reliable sources here, and all of them are just covering the fact of his initial selection or the fact of his resignation two years later. But simply verifying the start and end dates of his leadership term is not how you make a leader of a minor political party, which had no representation in the legislature during his term as leader, notable enough for a Wikipedia article -- you need ongoing coverage of his work in the role to demonstrate the significance of his leadership, and simply being able to verify that he existed as a minor political party leader is not an "inherent" notability freebie. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete leader of a minor party with no power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The topic of this article does not meet WP:NPOL, nor WP:GNG.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No notability. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above, leader of a minor party with no significant coverage. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:48, 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 06:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Group[edit]

Ideal Group (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)

The company does not meet WP:NCORP. The page has been tagged for a notability issue since 2015 and not yet addressed. Faizal batliwala (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not being addressed for fixing a tag can not be a good rationale for AfD nomination. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 18:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 06:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo Niagara Film Festival[edit]

Buffalo Niagara Film Festival (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)

93 unique Google hits including directories, namechecks, self-published and crowdfunders, but not reliable independent sources. The article appears to have been created as part of a walled garden (the rest of which have been deleted), by a promotional editor. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete - much as I like to encourage indie film-makers and new talents, this just doesn't meet WP:GNG. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Filipi Janković[edit]

Filip Filipi Janković (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)

promotional article sourced almost entirely to black hat SEO sites/spam/press releases and name drops. Praxidicae (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable individual unsourced to reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear to be notable. Subject was not even mentioned in the supposed Forbes article in the citation. --Infogapp1 (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Saddam[edit]

Hussain Saddam (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)

Paid for spam about a non-notable student activist. Most of the sources are passing mentions at best or regurgitated PR puffery. Being general secretary of an organization doesn't pass the notability test. Praxidicae (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I’m in total alignment with the thought process of the nom. A before search doesn’t show subject of our discussion has sufficient in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Another editor created Draft:Saddam Hussain with similar but non-identical content. Hussain Saddam was created as Draft:Hussain Saddam after the last content edit of "Saddam Hussain" draft then moved to mainspace, but the content is different enough that a history merge is inappropriate. I changed the "Saddam Hussain" draft to a redirect to the page under discussion here, and put ((copied)) templates on both talk pages. Draft:Saddam Hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on the English coverage only, this person is getting coverage similar to what a small-town mayor in the United States would get. I confess I have not tried to read the translations of the non-English sources. For all I know they could say "He's won multiple awards on a national scale" or something like that, but I'm not seeing it in the article text. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable Bangladeshi activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable person.--Rocky Masum (talk) 14:59, 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 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V774 Sagittarii[edit]

V774 Sagittarii (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)

Fails WP:NASTRO. This star is included in a number of large catalogues and databases, but there is zero research published solely about it or about it and a small number of other objects. Any notability is based on its potential size based on an unreliable Gaia DR2 parallax distance (and possibly on variability, although it is faint and not anything out of the ordinary in its class). Lithopsian (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly A. Hyman[edit]

Kelly A. Hyman (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)

As per the last AFD, still no indication she is notable. this isn't independent rs, it's a press release, this write up is a puff piece and wasn't enough last time, imdb isn't rs, random forbes contributor pieces aren't rs and this readers digest uk article was written by the manager of a marketing company. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. I don't have access to the previous incarnation of the page, which was deleted as the outcome of an AfD discussion in 2017, so I can't assess whether the current page is different from/better than its predecessor: however, there's nothing in the current page to demonstrate notability per WP:NACTOR, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]