< 31 July	2 August >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Hessian throne[edit]

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

This is an unsourced genealogical directory of people who hypothetically would have been Grand Duke or Elector (or Landgrave or Prince?) of Hesse (it's unclear to which of these long-abolished titles an individual is supposed to succeed) had the Grand Duchy not been dissolved in 1918, itself having been created (with its heads being considered "titular landgraves") after the Electorate dissolved in 1866. The textual info is a generic description of semi-Salic law and the years each former polity was annexed/dissolved, while the lineage info is included (still unsourced) in List_of_rulers_of_Hesse. There is no reason for this article to exist. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the Grand Duchy itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comments above.Smeat75 (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and probably unsourceable, for the same reasons as other lines of succession to defunct thrones. PatGallacher (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not cite RS and I don't believe this could be verifiably sourced and not contain substantial WP:OR | WP:SYNTH. // Timothy :: talk 13:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comments and reasons above. Futurist110 (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. While this could be sourced, the growing consensus has been to eliminate lists about successions of countries that don't exist anymore and monarchies that have been overthrown for one reason or another. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crolona Heights, California[edit]

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

This is not a community. As one local historian said, "Crolona refers to a strip of land between Crockett and Valona" and "this author is unaware that Crolona ever really existed as a town except in local imagination." It's incorrectly labelled as a town and doesn't seem otherwise notable. Glendoremus (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a one-sentence stub that does not establish any notability at all for this locale.TH1980 (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there was anything here, it's not notable. –dlthewave ☎ 21:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 18:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Goldenrowley (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a non-notable neighborhood. There are some mentions in Google Books: Carquinez Strait Resource Plan (1998), Crockett (2004) - includes a number of images for Crolona, include the quote in the nom about Crolona only appearing in the local imagination - this reference is strongest that I saw for keeping the article. newspapers.com has 43 references for "Crolona Heights", all trivial. Cxbrx (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a non notable neighborhood. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Bharatpur[edit]

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

No sources for this list verifying the people and positions in it are accurate, nor anything demonstrating the "current succession line" to this subsidiary throne abolished 70 years ago is even a concept covered by RS. It lists multiple private, non-notable people without citation, violating WP:BLPNAME. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the princely state itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Spiderone 10:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. State does not exist anymore and content on living persons needs to be verified.--Hippeus (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not cite RS and I don't believe this could be verifiably sourced and not contain substantial WP:OR | WP:SYNTH. // Timothy :: talk 13:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restructure -- I would suggest that a series of articles should be created for Indian Principalities cognate to those for British peerages, where there is a list if successive holders or the title. The maharajahs have not ruled since 1948 and many principalities were in practice controlled before independence by a Resident appointed by the British Raj. However the successors will retain the title of Maharajah, even though Indira Gandhi abolished their privy purses in 1960s (?), so that it is now largely an empty title. British peerage articles name the heir apparent and sometimes the next heir, but remoter claimants are probably NN and should not be listed. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or Restructure, both for the reasons mentioned above. Either of these two options is fine by me. Futurist110 (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. While this could be sourced, the growing consensus has been to eliminate lists about successions of countries that don't exist anymore and monarchies that have been overthrown for one reason or another. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nascar Aloe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable rapper who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from MUSICBIO. A before search shows no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources none whatsoever. Celestina007 23:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 23:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 23:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 23:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 23:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability doesn't seem to have changed since the first nomination. All but one source are lyric pages with no mention of the artist that is not in passing. AviationFreak💬 20:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 11:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 23:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Govind Nagar Railway Station GOVR[edit]

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

Original PROD was removed because 'railways are normally kept', however this station does not seem notable (even if they are normally kept) as per WP:GNG   Kadzi   (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as railway stations are expected to be included, have you considered off-line sources? Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not necessarily - all AfD discussion should be viewed on a case by case basis; they are not expected to be included. Please see this discussion Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_65#Request_for_comment_on_train_station_notability.   Kadzi   (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it that the answer to the question was no. Also I read that RFC at the time and the general feeling was that actual mainline stations should be included while railway sidings type entries should not, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Railway stations are generally presumed to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations are notable Devokewater @ 19:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir[edit]

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

No independent in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. I don't see anything to pass WP:ACADEMIC either. Google Scholar gives an h index of 11. Haukur (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Haukur (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. BLP is too bloated for an early career academic. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems to be a bit WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Podlesny[edit]

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

WP:NGRIDIRON not met (never even played in college); coverage of this athlete is run-of-the-mill coverage of his time in high school. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This player is next in line to start after the University of Georgia starting kicker left this past season. Coverage of this athlete will become relevant in the weeks coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcjimmerson (talk • contribs) 04:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failure of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:IMPACT (among many others). Subject could be notable in the future. If an enthusiastic editor wishes to userfy, that would be acceptable. Until then, perhaps an entry in a different online sports almanac would be in order. I suggest enthusiastic editors try another wiki. We'll still be here if the subject ever does achieve notability.,--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does userfy mean? Also, sorry for not signing my comment earlier, I am new to editing pages. Gcjimmerson (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! "Userfy" is a process where a Wikipedia entry (such as an article) is moved to a user's space. It is therefore retained and available for future editing, but not necessarily a part of the actual encyclopedia. The link to the essay WP:USERFY has a lot more details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this time clearly does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgehead, California[edit]

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

Not sure what this is. Shows up first time on the 1978 North Antioch topo map. There's a drive-in and a trailer park in the vicinity. The area has since been annexed by Antioch and Oakley. There's a Bridgehead road in Oakley and a couple small businesses in Antioch with the name Bridgehead-something. Not a word about it in any of the local histories. It may have been the name of the local neighborhood but I don't see anything notable about it. Glendoremus (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND. // Timothy :: talk 13:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Intelligence Institute[edit]

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

No independent sources, promotional content, notability is in doubt as I find only primary sources regarding University of Buffalo, no secondary sources 🌸🌺宮本🌺🌸 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note that the institute apparently only has 18 students, which goes to notability. Awbfiend (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No proper refs, not-notable, likely undisclosed COI too, since the main editor has only written this ana bio of its founder Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant independant sources. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The best I could find in coverage was this. Not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lombardi, California[edit]

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

Here we have something of a mess. The GNIS entry for this was ent3ered from a Forest Service map in 1991, but if you look at topos from after that date, you will see the label for Lombardi sitting next to Sherman Acres, California; go back earlier, though, and you see a somewhat different arrangement of buildings in the same area, labelled "Lombardi". The GNIS entry for Sherman Acres, though, has the following note rejecting the use of Lombardi: "USGS (Topo.), Big Meadow 1:62; to establish a name that is well known and used locally; USGS reports that the name Lombardi originated from a former cow camp in the area; USGS and USFS maps show variant; no P.O.; in Stanislaus NF."

The reality seems to be that they are the same locale, and that someone came back to the FS map, and not looking at the other entry, re-entered Lombardi. I found one reference to a Lombardi ranch, for what it's worth, but nothing establishing a town or the like (there are references to a Lombardi mine, but I believe it was elsewhere). Sherman Acres shows up a lot as a locale, but it's plainly a subdivision, not notable either, so I am adding it to this nomination:

Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that our Sherman Acres article says that it used to be called Lombardi, whereas the latter article insists there were two Lombardis, which is not a conclusion I can justify from any source. Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mangoe: Why not just redirect the page? Regards, Zindor (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To where? Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake i didn't see that Sherman Acres was also up for AfD. Zindor (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The difficulty in even establishing it's location argues for lack of notability. I don't see anything else that says it's notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Glendoremus (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyan (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no evidence film was released and production was not notable, all sourced come from around the same time, implying a media bump but no significant coverage, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It doesn't seem to have ever been released // Timothy :: talk 13:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fath[edit]

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

NN guitarist, fails the GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:AUTHOR. No substantive coverage in reliable, independent sources beyond namedrops. A superficial look at the article shows a number of otherwise reliable sources ... but nothing with links one can actually examine. Some of those are inline cites to some pretty startling claims, such as that this fellow is a peer to the likes of Eddie Van Halen, Jeff Beck, Joe Satriani and other guitar legends. So ... since extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and this is a BLP, I started digging.

As it happens, I found nothing. Guitar Player magazine has a well-tuned archive of everyone who’s been featured in it and everyone who’s written for it; Fath’s name does not appear. Guitar World magazine has an archive in which his name does not appear. The two Washington Post publication dates cited do not have anything about Fath in them. (Yay online library research access!) Amazon does sell the three novels the article says he’s written, none with a sales rank over 1.5 million, and all published out of iUniverse, which is a print-on-demand self-publishing outfit. Then you toss in that the article was created by a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this was, and that User:Michaelfath contributed much of the info, and there's COI as well. This guy does exist, and he has indeed released CDs, but too much of this article is BS, and he just doesn't clear notability muster. Ravenswing 19:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 19:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 19:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 19:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as either a writer or a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's Post coverage from the 1980s and 1990 (I'm not getting into a bagel shop-is-it-national-or-regional discussion), AllMusic (his albums are ratings-reviewed but no bio?); Alfred and Hal Leonard have published his guitar solo tablatures or whatever. For me, it's a pseudo-red flag when the top hits are for his site and his "celebrity speaker" agency. Interested in what other editors think--I don't want my bias against possible "feather in my cap" pages to distort what on the merits could be a very weak keep case. And as Ravenswing pointed out, he most likely edited his own page. Caro7200 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable guitarist. Couldn't find anything on him besides databases, non-independent sites and other people of the same name (apparently there is also a doctor of this name as well). When Allmusic has no bio it is not a reliable source. "His albums are rating-reviewed" does not establish notability either imo, as those ratings could came from users who post on Allmusic. And I am really tired of single-purpose accounts and CoI people. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The blue stars indicate AllMusic...unless it's a site error, those ratings are not from users, I think...I'm not sure why there are AllMusic ratings alone, never seen it before, maybe Richard3120 knows...regardless, yeah, notability is doubtful. Caro7200 (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Caro7200: it happens more frequently than you think, actually, on account of the ratings and reviews being done separately. They are AllMusic ratings, but it's true that if there's nothing more than a star rating, many editors don't really consider that a great sign of notability. Richard3120 (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No article on the novel currently exists but you're welcome to create it and redirect this title there. czar 05:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Stewart (author)[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT. The author is only known for tweeting his novel in its entirety. If anything, the novel should have its own page, not the author. Lack of coverage outside of that one event. BriefEdits (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student publication methods do not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The book itself handily passes WP:BOOKCRIT with these reviews: 1 2 3 4 plus there's this interview to further flesh out a book article. The author, however, I am struggling to find independent notability for. This article should redirect to an article about the book. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 17:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lug Healthcare Technology[edit]

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

I looked into this for the reference point of view. this is completely driven by corporate promotions. this is non-notable for wikipedia standards. they might have received awards and covered in few media.. but in this way every company will be listed in wikipedia and it will become a directory for such companies. Light2021 (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - every source is original research, which is sometimes appropriate for drugs and illnesses, but not persons. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh @Bearian: is this rationale for the correct debate because this is about a company, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are like people. PainProf (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that nominator has been blocked for using afd when he was banned from it. The only reason I have not kept this is a good faith dete vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself indicates the company is not notable, it describes releasing a limited custom software in a couple hospitals in spain, nothing really going on. Its not a major company and I couldn't find additional sources. PainProf (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I stand by my original rationale, but let me explain. Having primary sources are common in scientific articles in Wikipedia and are found on every "infobox" about species, drugs, diseases, etc. Such primary sources about humans and corporations tend to be listings or self-created sources of information. For example, a musician may be interviewed by a popular magazine; that is allowed to be used as a source of information, but not as the only source, in an article. Likewise, an article about a drug will often have original research about its uses and side effects, which is okay - as long as it's not the only source of information in the article. This subject page is basically just a bunch of original research about the company, and I suspect, indirectly by the company. Many businesses will self-report research about their finances and products, and it will be picked up by the media without any comment, editing, or analysis. That's not significant, independent reporting or writing that we expect of a business. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite substantial effort by one editor, no substantive evidence has been produced showing this individual meets GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Nylstoch[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON; fails GNG. Sources do not demonstrate significance of individual, and many of them do not even mention his name. Also assume that creator is closely connected to subject. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The text below was copied from WP:ATD by User:Shunyatananda ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to deletion

Policy shortcuts

WP:ATD

WP:DEL-CONTENT

WP:DEL#CONTENT

Editing and discussion

Main page: Wikipedia:Editing policy

If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.

Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

Policy shortcut

WP:ATD-E

If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles.

Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunyatananda (talk • contribs) 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Note - The comment below may constitute a vote by User:Shunyatananda ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sources clearly demonstrate the significance of the individual - perhaps you should spend a bit more time examining the reliable and valid sources such as music brains and National Library of Australia (etc)

2. Instead of claiming that the sources don't name the subject - get to know all the many pseudonyms and project names before leaping to the blame.

First Example GOOGLE SCHOLAR mIS-SPELT NAME!!!! https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=nylstock&btnG=

The DiY ['Do it yourself'] Ethos: A participatory culture of material engagement

E Snake-Beings - 2016 - researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz

… (Dot eyes), Dave Surf, Ben Spiers, Daniela Catucci, Suzzanne McNair, Joe Citizen, Peter,

Duncan, and all my friends from Huia, Chris Nylstock, Simone Inkrot, Jo Williams, Elizabeth

from Berlin's Avant-Garden, EdwardGodsmyth.org, Adrienne …

3. The claim that the article creator is closely connected with the subject is completely false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunyatananda (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His 'music brainz' site does not provide any information about him and simply states he has no releases, no associated works, and no events. Citing to a library that has a copy of a document he apparently wrote does not establish his notability. None of the sources do. Please see WP:GNG, WP:V, and/or WP:RS. Simply having his name listed on a website does not show that he warrants a Wikipedia article‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The comment below is more discussion from User:Shunyatananda ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Accusation 1= His 'music brainz' site does not provide any information about him and simply states he has no releases

Refutation 1 -- https://musicbrainz.org/artist/f5059e52-df32-4404-8dc9-5b74116e9ab2/releases (There are countless releases, associated works and events and will be added to the desired databases as they are requeste and confirmed)

2. Thankyou for yr suggestions Please see WP:GNG, WP:V, and/or WP:RS will address these one by one.

3. Simply having his name listed on a website does not show that he warrants a Wikipedia article - so true! The composer's name isn't just 'listed' on multiple official sites - there are also interviews, reviews, videos and many other ways these sites address the composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunyatananda (talk • contribs) 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Above, Shunyatananda is trying very hard to prove that the musician is notable but can only show that he has been listed in various places. In addition to the various Wikipedia policies that El Cid has listed correctly, I will also point out WP:SIGCOV, which says that any source mentioning the subject should not only be reliable, but the coverage therein should also be significant. Yes, we can see that the musician (under whatever spelling of his name) has been listed as present at various events, credited for appearing on various releases, mentioned in passing amongst other people, etc. etc. But not a single one of his media mentions in reliable sources are significant, and his name basically appears in some lists. Those lists might be connected to notable things, but the musician does not gain notability by association. So he's a DIY guy who appears to be making an honest living bouncing around various creative industries. Good for him, but he's still not notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello Doomsdayer, thankyou for your contribution. "Just appears on some lists" is completely incorrect, perhaps you haven't read through the sources properly. One example is source 16 which links to a Phd dissertation that has a whole chapter/section covering the work of Nylstoch's collaborations and novel contributions to the field of expanded cinema. This is one of two different postgraduate papers from different universities, both completely independent of the subject. As you can see in the external links and throughout the article, Nylstoch is not D.I.Y as claimed - his work is released internationally and signed to various labels such as Magic Crowbar, BDTD, Pulled Out etc (owned by other people and therefore not D.I.Y) Another example is an international mention from Christchurch Polytec music faculty Dr Derrick who describes Nylstoch as 'one of Australias leading experimentalists along with Jon Rose (who is also in wikipedia). These are not passing mentions, perhaps Doomsdayer isn't conversant with the topic, instead just wants to shoot it down... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunyatananda (talk • contribs) 02:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another false claim is "bouncing around the creative industries" It is evident from the FCMC site reference that Nylstoch has founded a not for profit cultural organization that has supported the creation of over 400,000 works, upon contacting this organization you will find that its collections and represented artists meet the criteria for an australian government heritage significance assessment. https://www.arts.gov.au/sites/default/files/significance-2.0.pdf?acsf_files_redirect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunyatananda (talk • contribs) 02:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response - This is becoming severely tiresome. Actually I am conversant with the topic and yes I did read through the sources. Yes Nylstoch exists, but then so do I and I don't get a Wikipedia article. My only possible error might be in calling Nylstoch "DIY" but that was not pertinent to whether or not he is notable. That is what matters, regardless of how much you happen to know about him. You continue to link to sources in which he is only mentioned briefly, and evidence is mounting that your claims about Nylstoch's widespread influence are exaggerated.

The PhD thesis "The DiY [‘Do-it-Yourself’] Ethos" by E. Snake-Beings only lists Nylstoch in its Acknowledgments section, and it spells his name wrong.
That thesis is the only relevant entry in the Google Scholar search that you linked far above; there are two other results for an unrelated chemical called "NyL Stock".
The Australian government document linked in your last comment ("Significance 2.0") does not list Nylstoch or his organization (FCMC) in its index, nor are they mentioned anywhere in its text per a PDF search.
Nylstoch is not presently listed anywhere on the FCMC site, and the WP article's citation claiming that he co-founded it is presently dead, so I am skeptical about his true involvement in that organization at all. Thus I must conclude that Nylstock was only tangentially involved in a portion of the 400,000 acts of supporting cultural works that you claimed above.
He is not covered in an entire chapter of the thesis "Yes, But How Do We Place You?" by D.S. Zuvela; instead the student used examples of works in which he was involved. (See also WP:OR, as original research does not count for notability in Wikipedia.)
The record labels to which he is signed are themselves non-notable, regardless of who runs them.
I stand by my "Just appears on some lists" conclusion from above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist as nominator
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Ifnord (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only tiresome thing is defending more false claims -"*Nylstoch is not presently listed anywhere on the FCMC site" Nylstoch is most definately the current secretary of the FCMC inc. (Vic)^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunyatananda (talk • contribs) 05:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The efforts being made here to turn a guy who was thanked by some filmmakers into an omnipotent Australian culture guru are quite impressive hero worship. I inspected the FCMC (Foundation for Contemporary Music & Culture) page back on July 19 and did not find Nylstoch listed anywhere within it. I tried to look again just now but my Internet security service (the trustworthy Norton LifeLock) now says the website is dangerous. However I could confirm through an indirect Google search that Nylstoch is indeed their secretary. So he has an administrative position with an organization, good for him. If he truly co-founded the group, nobody in the media cares except for unreliable blog writers. FCMC has some influence, but Nylstoch does not get notability from them. This lengthy paragraph is only about FCMC, and Nylstoch's worshipper has nothing new on all the other claims of influence that have been debunked by myself and El Cid previously. I stand by my "Just appears on some lists" conclusion from above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to IEEE Circuits and Systems Society with the option of merging any content that seems viable. There's consensus here that a standalone article isn't appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Computer-Aided Design Technical Committee[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Prodded recently by User:Kj_cheetham and deprodded by User:David Eppstein with "This is a major subunit of IEEE". Unfortunately, it still doesn't seem notable. I expect this AfD may end up with a merge/redirect suggestion per the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technical Committee on VLSI, and frankly, I don't see what is there to merge, but let's discuss, I guess. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I recognise it's important within the IEEE, but I'm still not convinced of it's notability to the wider world. There is a single independant source now at least, hence only a weak vote from me now, and I might be convinced to change my mind. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I just can't find sources that reflect its importance beyond the one I added when I deprodded it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the first sentence from the lead into IEEE_Circuits_and_Systems_Society. The independent source was a good find by David, but I was unable to find further significant RS that would satisfy WP:GNG. The source does establish some verifiable material, however, and I think a mention in the CAS article is reasonable and of due weight. Pragmatically, adding the RS found will also benefit the CAS article as well. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 20:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing as "delete" rather than "redirect" as the proposed target does not mention this title, and would thus be somewhat misleading. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Retreat, California[edit]

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

Another entry that GNIS unwarily copied from "Welcome to Calaveras County and Western Alpine County", it is actually the Mountain Retreat Resort, which I suppose could be considered a "community" to the extent that it has people who own condos there, some of whom probably live there year-'round. But officially recognized? Not that I can see. Mangoe (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More bad info brought to us by GNIS. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arnold, California. It is a neighborhood withing the confines of the CDP. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arnold, California. A redirect is slightly preferred so as to possible prevent creation of a new article. Mountain Retreat is not notable: newspapers.com was no help - lots of classified ads, Google Books had nothing as well. I'd be fine with a delete. Cxbrx (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srinath Rajendran[edit]

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

Two dead links referencing non notable director in fancruft that has survived since 2011 Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable director Spiderone 20:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmamker.John Pack Lambert (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 delete. Sandstein 10:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yaquaru (creature)[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no indication from WP:BEFORE that any amount of expansion or restructuring will change this. If anyone feels strongly otherwise, I would support Draftify. // Timothy :: talk 19:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article cites Martin Dobrizhoffer's book Historia de Abiponibus equestri bellicosaque Paraguariae natione (in Latin), and gives no page number (as do some contemporary sources that mention the animal). That's unfortunate, because there is an easily accessible English translation, where we find the entry on THE YGUARÒ, OR WATER-TIGER on page 300. The latin version is available here. Faulkner's account of what he calls the yaquaru or yaquaruigh is available at [1] on page 62. I had not been able to locate Basaldua, F (1900). Monstruos Argentinos. Worldcat says the Natural History Museum has a copy. [2]. It took me a while to realize that this citation is incomplete. It's not a book, but an article that appeared in a magazine, Caras y Caretas in volume 32 from 13 May 1899. I did find contemporary source that describes the publication of that article [3] and provides quite a bit of context, but concludes: "Creaba, también,al nuevo continente de ficción para una narrativa menos apegada a laverdad referencial que al descubrimiento de lo extraordinario". In other words; it is a spectacularly unsuitable source for a Wikipedia article, like Dobrizhoffer and Faulkner. Vexations (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Author request, I am relying the request of the author ([4]) that this be draftified.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

i)Notability

The Original referrer of the Yaquaru, Falkner is a notable person, his book is notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book and having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N. (also in same way, Dobrizhoffer is notable along with his work.)

ii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE

The article is neither any of the 'Summary-only descriptions of works', 'Lyrics databases', Excessive listings of unexplained statistics' or 'Exhaustive logs of software updates' thus not violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

iii) WP:BEFORE

Also, in spite of WP:BEFORE C. being very much pertinent, the AfD nomination was made.

iv) Alternative of Deletion

The article does not violate any 14 points mentioned in WP:DEL-REASON or any of G1-G14 or A1-A11 per WP:CSD. Further per WP:NOTBUILT, since the article has been in the process of improvement, also per WP:DEL#CONTENT, it should be kept.

v) Good Faith and New Comer

Besides I request to consider WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.

Comment: I have already requested the article to be moved to draftspace since in the mean time I could not execute the planned enrichment of the article due to the present block, otherwsise there would have been no requirement for this debate. AranyaPathak (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specs (creature)[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no indication from WP:BEFORE that any amount of expansion or restructuring will change this. If anyone feels strongly otherwise, I would support Draftify. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I explained on its talk page: I think this article, like others created by the same editor is derived from Eberhart, George M. (2002). Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-283-7.. The article has only one citation, that matches the entry on Specs at page 512–513. It follows a similar structure; Etymology, Physical Description, Habitat, Location where the book has Etymology, Physical Description, Habitat, Distribution, Significant sighting, Present status, Possible explanations. The sources listed in the book are listed as follows:
United Press International report, March 12, 1959; “The Ocean Has Them
Too,” Fate 12 (July 1959): 10-11; Karl Shuker, In Search of Prehistoric Survivors (London: Blandford, 1995), pp. 123-126.
The article has: "The Ocean Has Them Too". United Press International Report. 12 March 1959.
What is omitted here is that it was published in Fate (magazine) a source that's about as unreliable as it comes. As for Karl Shuker as a source, he's well known as a cryptozoologist. Vexations (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unencyclopedic nonsense. Fails GNG. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Author request, I am relying the request of the author ([5]) that this be draftified.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no question. The author seems unlikely to return. Deb (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

i)Notability

The Original referrer of the Specs, United Press International is renowned international news agency and thus is notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book while having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE and WP:N. Also the source is WP:RS and is availabe for verification satisfying WP:V.

ii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE

The article is neither any of the 'Summary-only descriptions of works', 'Lyrics databases', 'Excessive listings of unexplained statistics' or 'Exhaustive logs of software updates' thus not violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

iii) WP:BEFORE

Also, in spite of WP:BEFORE C. being very much pertinent, the AfD nomination was made.

iv) Alternative of Deletion

The artcile does not violate any 14 points mentioned in WP:DEL-REASON or any of G1-G14 or A1-A11 per WP:CSD. Further per WP:NOTBUILT, since the article has been in the process of improvement, also per WP:DEL#CONTENT, it should be kept.

v) Good Faith and New Comer

Besides I request to cosndier WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.

vi) WP:Copyvio

Plagiarism check is accepted norm to detect violation of copyright.

vii) More Sources

There are more sources that can be added in this article,which would have solved the issue of 'Single Mention'.

Comment: I have already requested the article to be moved to draftspace since in the mean time I could not execute the planned enrichment of the article due to reigning exigent situation, otherwsise there would have been no requirement for this debate. AranyaPathak (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be clarified here. UPI's report is not the same as "The Ocean Has Them Too", as the article suggests. These are two distinct sources. The UPI report is from 12 March 1959 and quotes a diver, Bob Wall, who claims to have seen a creature that was about five and a half feet long and three feet high when standing, and had a long, cylindrical body, eight legs, and eyes the size of silver dollars. You can find a copy here: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/29968354/ukiah-daily-journal/. "The Ocean has them too" is an article in Fate (magazine) from July 1959 and is a different source altogether. Vexations (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to draft. Sandstein 10:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narrara (creature)[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no indication from WP:BEFORE that any amount of expansion or restructuring will change this. If anyone feels strongly otherwise, I would support Draftify. // Timothy :: talk 19:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect that Narrara is a misspelling of Ngārara; the Māori name for reptiles.^[2] We already have an article on Māori mythology, as well as articles on the reptiles that the term may apply to, like the Tuatara and the Otago skink. There's no point in redirecting since Narrara isn't really used anywhere, so it's not a plausible search term. Vexations (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Author request, I am relying the request of the author ([6]) that this be draftified.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

i)Notability

The Original referrer of the Narrara, John Bidwill is a notable person, his book is notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book and having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N. (also in same way, J V Haast and Margaret Orbell are notable along with their works

ii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE

The article is neither any of the 'Summary-only descriptions of works', 'Lyrics databases', 'Excessive listings of unexplained statistics' or 'Exhaustive logs of software updates' thus not violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

iii) WP:BEFORE

Also, in spite of WP:BEFORE C. being very much pertinent, the AfD nomination was made.

iv) Alternative of Deletion

The article does not violate any 14 points mentioned in WP:DEL-REASON or any of G1-G14 or A1-A11 per WP:CSD. Further per WP:NOTBUILT, since the article has been in the process of improvement, also per WP:DEL#CONTENT, it should be kept.

v) Good Faith and New Comer

Besides I request to consider WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.

Comment: I have already requested the article to be moved to draftspace since in the mean time I could not execute the planned enrichment of the article due to the reigning exigent situation, otherwsise there would have been no requirement for this debate. AranyaPathak (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attentive readers will notice that the copy of Bidwell's book that is linked to above, doesn't mention "Narrara", "Ngārara", "reptile" or even "creature".Vexations (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - article doesn't currently demonstrate notability but happy to allow the author to prepare a draft that does. Deus et lex (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy draftify. AranyaPathak, who created the article, has asked for it to be draftified. It is definitely not ready for mainspace. Let's give AranyaPathak the chance to make something of it. (My advice to AranyaPathak is to consider whether the article should, in modern spelling, be titled Ngārara – the mythical creature in Maori belief, not the tuatara, Otago skink or reptiles in general.) Nurg (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desiree Parker[edit]

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

The sources do not include a single independent, reliable source. 5 references to desireeparkerofficial.com are obviously not independent. Facebook is not an acceptable source, nor is medium.com. The buzzfeed entry is written by a Community Contributor. dailymotion.com is her demoreel. deviantart.com is not an editorial, but user-submitted content. thehearup is not so clear cut. The article is written by Saad Mushtaq who "follows the money and covers all aspects of emerging tech here at The Hear Up". Hmm... Anyway, the article is an interview, so it's not a secondary source. Then there's bloglovin.com, written by Jeffery Thompson, whose article How To Be A Triple Threat Like Desiree Parker has the same title as the one written by shahmir55 for deviantart.com that is also called How To Be A Triple Threat Like Desiree Parker. Coincidence? No. The text is nearly the same. Delete as spam please. Vexations (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:GNG failure Spiderone 20:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 20:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (edit conflict) Definitely fails WP:GNG, probably a borderline WP:G11 anyway. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Anhalt[edit]

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

Line of succession to these former thrones impossible to determine without verification, sourcing such as there is consists of one probably self-published website just giving the family but not the line. PatGallacher (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the Duchy itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too much OR and SYNTH. I don't believe this could be verifiably sourced and not contain substantial WP:OR | WP:SYNTH. // Timothy :: talk 13:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. While this could be sourced, the growing consensus has been to eliminate lists about successions of countries that don't exist anymore and monarchies that have been overthrown for one reason or another. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore's Penguin Army[edit]

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

Article about a YouTube video uploaded in 2006 that has received practically no news coverage in the last 12 years or so. While it was probably considered a "viral video" for its time, something like this with the number of views and amount of news coverage would be nearly insignificant today, and would probably not pass wp:WEB. So in other words, while it may have been notable back in 2006 and when it was first nominated for deletion the following year, it might not be so today. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is not temporary and deleting this would allow climate deniers to cover up their activities. 163.170.130.6 (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. While it would be a footnote by modern standards, a video going viral in 2006, a year after YouTube was created and before going viral was a thing, seems fairly notable. Also, irrespective of whether this has specifically received news coverage in the last 12 years, it has been covered in books. See, e.g., Kerric Harvey, Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics (Sage, 2013), p. 39; Robert L. Heath, ‎H. Dan O'Hair, Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (2010), p. 392; Emma Bell, ‎Samantha Warren, ‎Jonathan E. Schroeder, The Routledge Companion to Visual Organization (2014), ~p. 449. BD2412 T 18:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Notability is not temporary, and the coverage in books found shows that this was covered over a substantial period of time in any case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an ephemeral two minute political youtube video that's been deleted is not an encyclopedic topic in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atlantic306: It appears that the video has not, in fact, been deleted. I don't see why this is any less encyclopedic of a topic than the one-minute Daisy commercial. BD2412 T 17:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, just watched it but surprised it only has 643,000 views which is low for a viral video imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stupid little thing that seems to pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article and provided above are enough to demonstrate notability. (See also [7] via Henry Jenkins, who also wrote about it in his contribution to this 2009 book.) The view count may be low compared to modern viral sensations, but we don't make notability judgments based on YouTube views. What matters is that people wrote about it in a serious way, even years later. XOR'easter (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Squeeks past WP:GNG. The sources in the article are enough to demonstrate notability. Adding the ones above will improve the article. // Timothy :: talk 13:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a shameless WP:PILEON. I think this video is awful and a waste of storage on the Youtube server - but what do I know... The topic got e thinking about a video about an article we recently improved Democracy Manifest - some may not think it is not as funny as I do. Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above and WP:NTEMP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AnalytiX DS[edit]

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

Another software company that fails NCORP. Lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. M4DU7 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even notable enough for a merge or redirect. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chiman Singh[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the WP:SOLDIER, as the MVC is a second tier award and is awarded only once to the subject. Zoodino (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The source states, he is the only Sailor in the Indian Navy to have been conferred with the Maha Vir Chakra – And also the recipient of Friends of Liberation War Honour by the President Bangladesh (awarded by a foreign country). [8], A navy's training facility has also been named after the subject [9], [10] TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberation War Honour have also been conferred upon Atal Bihari Vajpayee, which indicates the award is one of the prestigious awards of Bangladesh. [11]. (This was useful to me to mention this here because most of the Asian countries lacks Wikipedia articles, particularly awards, honours etc. or the existing articles are not well developed that could provide straightforward information). TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBirdsShedTears:, Correcting some of the statements you mentioned.

"he is the only Sailor in the Indian Navy to have been conferred with the Maha Vir Chakra" - According to official GOI website (https://gallantryawards.gov.in/awardees-0), there are 9 such awardees from Navy.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee was awarded Bangladesh Liberation War Honour (which were awarded to 13 heads of state and govermnets), whereas the subject was awarded Friends of Liberation War Honour conferred to individuals, six organisations and Mitra Bahini. The individuals include 257 Indians, 88 Americans, 41 Pakistanis, 39 Britons, 9 Russians, 18 Nepalese, 16 French and 18 Japanese. (mentioned at Awards and decorations of the Bangladesh Liberation War). Both are different awards.
https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/new-diving-facility-honour-naval-war-hero-diving-school-kochi states that a new facility (block) is inaugrated in the already existing diving school in the subject's name. (not the complete school)

Zoodino (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zoodino You are confused! this is unfortunate that you have misunderstood what the sources said. "He is the only Sailor "Petty Officer" (not a Major or lieutenant general that you've referred to). 1). For instance, show me a navy officer with equivalent rank who received the award in question?. 2). If Bangladesh have conferred their award on several other state heads that means it is more prestigious that i previously thought. 3). Show me a school or a block in India that was named after a navy officer with equivalent rank?

Those who have been awarded MVC are not Petty Officers in the navy, but they're "Major", L/NK, 2L/NK, NK, CHM etc. of the army. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Chiman Singh was also awarded Maha Vir Chakra and Friends of Liberation Award by Bangladesh. He was first Indian Navy enlisted personnel to get Maha Vir Chakra. He was also a war hero of Indi-Pakistan war of 1971 and Bangladesh Liberation war. A new diving school in Kochin training facility has also been named after Petty Officer Chiman Singh, MVC. So,He is a also notable person of Indian Military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsaikat (talk • contribs) 12:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kumarsaikat:, Correcting the statements:

He was one of the first, there are 8 such navy people in 1971 who got the MVC first time in Navy, according to https://gallantryawards.gov.in/awardees-0.
(point same as in above reply) https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/content/new-diving-facility-honour-naval-war-hero-diving-school-kochi states that a new facility (block) is inaugrated in the already existing diving school in the subject's name. (not the complete school)

Zoodino (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zoodino You are confused! 1). Chiman Singh was only sailor (Jawan) who got the Maha Vir Chakra and other 8 Navy personnel were officers in Indian Navy(They were not an enlisted sailor). 2). Petty Officer Chiman Singh was awarded the Friends of Liberation War Honour by the President of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh in 2013. The award is also prestigious because the award is awarded by president of Bangladesh. 3). A newly constructed modern dive-training facility at the Diving School, of the Southern Naval Command (SNC) christened as the “Chiman Singh” Block.

Delete Per WP:SOLDIER. As stated by nom, there should be more coverage and sources than what is currently listed in order to prove enduring notability. Mar4d (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can understand Kumarsaikat's urge to preserve the article because of their significant contributions to the article. Instead of replying to all the statements mentioned above by Kumarsaikat and TheBirdsShedTears, which would result in nothing but going round and round without any firm points. I would state clear reasons for my vote.

The artcile does not satisfies WP:SOLDIER in any manner to prove the notability of the subject. So it falls on WP:GNG to prove the notability.
WP:GNG states the subject should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Examining the available references, it is clearly visible that their is only one reference^[3], which may be worthy of consideration.

Therefore to conclude, the subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Zoodino (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zoodino this is an unreasonable excuse i have ever came across. Your nomination states "Doesn't meet the WP:SOLDIER, as the MVC is a second tier award and is awarded only once to the subject" and now you've raised your concerns regarding the "sources". There are plenty of reliable sources available that covers the subject straightforward.^[4] ^[5]^[6]^[7] ^[8] ^[9]^[10]. Now how would you explain that?. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

@TheBirdsShedTears:, It is self explained if you analyse the links instead of just searching google and pasting directly here as refs.
- Ref no. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 : all published either on 15 Dec, 2017 or 16 Dec, 2017. All of them are news pieces about the same event "diving facility named after the subject". (the diving school does not have an article themselves on enwiki) These news sources report about the subject for only one event, that too about the diving facility as the primary point of the news article and the subject secondary; which would not be accounted as significant coverage. I can find a lot of individuals having news coverage more than this in reliable sources for single event, but that would not make them notable.
- Ref no. 4 : a single name mention, with list hundreds of other awardees.
Again my final statement is same "fails WP:GNG". Zoodino (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since you disagree with my assessment, it is better to wait for more AfD participants. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I agree he doesn't meet a strict reading of WP:NSOLDIER, but in my mind he just barely meets WP:GNG with the awards and facility being named after him. I'm thinking of diving students attending the facility and then looking him up out of curiousity and not seeing him here. I made some minor improvements and added a source. But I would like to point out that many of the sources listed above are duplicates of the same PTI news feed. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Replying to Timtempleton, we can not base our discussions on what would the students of the academy would feel (I know you may have mentioned it on a lighter note, but still). And Thanks for pointing out that most of the sources above are just copy of the PTI News feed. This is because most of the sources just report the subject for the same event (the opening of the facility), which is more of a single day news, which fails Wikiepdia is Not News. Zoodino (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As pointed out by the last two comments, most of the sources are just copies of the PTI News Feed and I don't think what is left, or the subject more generally, is notability enough an article. As the last comment says Wikiepdia is Not News and there has to sustained in-depth coverage over time about multiple things in order for something to be notability. Which in any meaningful way doesn't seem to be the case here. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing that he meets SOLDIER or the GNG either. From what I read out of the voluminous keep arguments, they boil down to "A bunch of 1E casual mentions or namedrops = significant coverage" and WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Neither are supported by relevant notability guidelines. Ravenswing 23:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant's foot umbrella stand[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any evidence of this game existing under this name, from a search online. There are plenty of "8 Word-Based Parlour Games and How to Play Them" listicles, but none of them pre-date the 2005 creation of this article. A Google search for "elephant's foot umbrella stand" game restricted to pre-2005 results returns only one result, which uses the terms unrelatedly.

Checking word game reference books (Everyman's Word Games and The Penguin Book of Word Games) I can't find anything quite like it, either: there are plenty of games where players recite things alphabetically ("I went to the shop and I bought an apple and a banana..."), but nothing where the advancing letter progresses through a secret phrase like this. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Alternatively, Redirect to Parlour game or Umbrella stand) I found a mention in The Telegraph (granted, it's post-2005) that starts with You know this one, indicating that whether or not the game has existed for a while, a reputable newspaper feels their readers would know the game. The rules listed in The Telegraph seem to be about a different game and I found no other reliable mentions in this context, meaning it fails GNG. The vast majority of mentions I found were in relation to 'umbrella stands' themselves, like this cartoon, but there was no significant coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get the sense that a lot of journalists looked at Wikipedia's scant parlour game article, which lists this and not many others, when meeting a deadline. I guess it's out there now whatever the origin, though. Suggest merging to I packed my bag (which I've only just noticed existing), for being the generic memory game of this type. --Lord Belbury (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally think the games are similar enough to justify a merge there, maybe all of the stub parlor games could be merged to a 'list of Parlor games'? Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it's written, Elephant's Foot Umbrella Stand is identical to the alphabetical version of "I Packed My Bag" except instead of following A-B-C-... (and knowing this) you're following E-L-E-... (but have to work this out). They both have the same rule about correctly repeating all the previous objects. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's no point in merging the completely unsourced article, and The Telegraph (only RS I could find) lays out different rules for the game. I'd support a merge if there was content worth merging. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaking past the Telegraph paywall, they describe it as guessing a secret rule rather than guessing the E-L-E-... sequence, but otherwise it sounds like a memory list game ("and then each player tries to add to the list"). If it's just a game of naming things which do or do not fit a rule, there's no need to keep track of a "list". Still seems mergeable to me. Am also amazed there's no apparent writeup of the basic "name a thing that fits or doesn't fit a rule" game (which would be an equally mergeable target), I'll get onto that. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Well, the Telegraph is a reliable source, but it sounds as if the content of the article is mostly WP:OR as it doesn't match the source. I think we should merge the Telegraph citation (I've put it in the article) with a very brief description per Lord Belbury just above, to Parlour game or a similar article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely anyone entering this title is more likely to be looking for content about umbrella stands made from elephants' feet than about a parlour game? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it apparently exists, and this article explains the reason it's called elephant's foot. [[12]] There doesn't seem to be anywhere appropriate to merge this. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG above all. One passing mention in a news article does not demonstrate notability. It's far WP:TOOSOON. Nothing to merge it to and, as pointed out above, a reader is much more likely to be looking for an actual umbrella stand than this neologism. Ifnord (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deletegiven the lack of prior sources. The Telegraph reference is far too recent to believe that it is independent of our text. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Mangoe that the telegraph reference may be circular. Awbfiend (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom's good research. --Lockley (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 17:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abeiku Nyame (Jagger Pee)[edit]

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

non notable actor who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR. This source appears to be a sponsored post hence it is not to be considered reliable. Celestina007 17:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 08:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Gbenga Dawodu[edit]

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

Non notable philanthropist & comedian who doesn’t satisfy WP:ENT, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or any notability criteria. A before search no evidence of notability none whatsoever. Celestina007 17:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable comedian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a strange set of references that feel much more like paid for PR than real articles, although ostensibly about the subject. This feels like WP:ADMASQ trying to make some sort of faux notability for this WP:N miss Fiddle Faddle 21:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are we even discussing this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen Dawodu - Surely this is CSD candidate? Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously one needs admin goggles to be able to compare the article, but, despite not having them, I have just nominated this for speedy deletion as a re-creation Fiddle Faddle 22:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is clear consensus that this content should be kept, probably in this form, but perhaps in another. I am closing this as keep but this close should not forestall any proposed merge - different people had thoughts about the right way to potentially merge (or reasons why not to do it at all) and that process can continue/finish, if an editor feels it important, outside of AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T 41241[edit]

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

Unnotable UK locomotive. (A higher level article for the locomotive class exists - LMS_Ivatt_Class_2_2-6-2T). Author was banned for repeatedly ignoring basic WP policies and guidelines. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into higher class article or Snow keep as it seems as if the article is talking about an individual unit built and if it is still around today should have some notability. no refs in article, but I've found one online (and there could be more) https://kwvr.co.uk/steam-train/steam-train-3/ which could help solidify notability. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages due to the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T, or weak keep if sources from an additional location (beyond KWVR) are found. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agreed i feel like the KWVR sources are a bit weak, and i don't know for sure but the language between the two is way too similar to be an accident and not some plagirism, felt like it was the best to add them to article nontheless Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add I'd be happy with this being merged into a preservation article, rather than the main class article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oppose merge(to main class article). Preserved engines acquire their own unique tracked history akin to a sports person and best dealt with as a subpage of the class to avoid WP:UNDUE. Its also why I oppose a merge, the Preservation of the class is already at or perhaps even beyond the WP:UNDUE point in the main article and a merge makes it worse. I am far also far from convinced the redirect would be any additional help in finding the main article. With regards to the nomination the creator was in good standing at the time of the creation, and could have been created by anybody. and despite to work with them (main issue was promotion of own images if I recall) that was not possible. I do note effort is better spent improving and citing the main article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Thryduulf's update below its the merge to main class I'm strongly opposing ... I'm not unhappy, mabe neutral or weak one way or the other, if the preserved members of the class have their own combined article. btw: I think 41241 hade a brief (blink and you'd miss it) appearance on BBC4 last night on ("The Golden Age of Steam Railways", ep2. Branching out, circa 00:52s) [13]. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The encyclopaedic information about these locomotives would be WP:UNDUE in the more general article, which as noted is already bordering on being unduly biased towards preservation. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposed to merging to a combined LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T in preservation or Preserved LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T locomotives (or similarly titled article) as suggested below. I explicitly oppose merging or redirecting to the main article about the class. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would doubt the independent noteworthiness of this loco, although certainly there are some locos which would be legitimate to have an article about. If the class article is suffering from undue weight of preservation info, could an article LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T in preservation or something be created? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, oppose merge. They are both preserved locomotives, and therefore both are notable. — Iain Bell (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iain Bell I'm not sure I follow the logic there. Something being preserved in a museum does not make it independently notable, which is the problem here. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Individual preserved locos are more than examples of the class, have a preservation and operational history that is often well researched and documented, and of interest to many within the specialism. welsh (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I certainly agree it is of interest to selected people, but my concern is is each individual loco really notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia article, especially if the information is already documented elsewhere. Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST after all. I wouldn't be opposed to mattbucks idea of a preservation page for the class though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This article does not assert this loco's independent noteworthiness - every single source is the K&WV website. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect both to LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T. Not all preserved locos are notable. Its like saying in theory Class 56 no. 56006 should get an article, yet it doesn't have one, because its not particularly notable! If all were last of a class then maybe, but a weak maybe at that. Nightfury 13:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nightfury how do you feel about the issues raised regarding undue weight if merged into the main article? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mattbuck, having studied target there should be more than enough info on it to explain both subjects. Noting two other preserved articles do not have articles. Nightfury 21:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the article does not pass WP:GNG, it in no way explains why this locomotive is notable apart from the fact it still exists. If there are UNDUE issues with merging to the parent article then create a new article about the class in preservation. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need articles on every loco.Denzil1963 (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The need for the !voter to use the majestic plural on a WP:VAGUEWAVE reminds me I must look at updating that article with this reference:[14]. More seriously I suppose the is trying to say he does not believe articles are needed on the two locomotives nominated for deletion here, and various other ones as well. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge. WP:MILL object; anorakcruft of minute real-world significance. This locomotive is covered in sources as an example of its class, and we should do so too: at appropriate, much reduced length, in the respective class article. Sandstein 14:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article sources are adequete and Djm-leighpark, welsh and Thryduulf make a reasonable case for it remaining a stand alone article instead of a merge. // Timothy :: talk 13:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting our notability guide with references. Encyclopedic content. Wm335td (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article passes WP:GNG as discussed by participants. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somalis in Germany[edit]

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

Small community, no refs, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I merged the content from the FGM section into Immigration and crime in Germany#Female Genital Mutilation. // Timothy :: talk 03:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changed vote due to article improvement. // Timothy :: talk 08:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Demographics_of_Germany#Foreign_nationals_in_Germany, adding an entry in the table. (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV (therefore WP:GNG googling in German turns up a number of sources. With the handful of sources already in the article, the subject should pass WP:GNG. These are major news outlets, but it is also likely that there are more sources from German authorities, but I haven't yet figured out which German words in "bureaucratic Deutsch" to search for. Any ideas?

A Thousand Words (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater 16:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afro-Germans. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, and two different suggested merge targets
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG. Plenty of coverage, e.g. here, here, here, here, here and here, on top of what's in the article or mentioned above. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, being a small community has no impact on notability. User:Störm seems to be on a deletion spree and not putting in the BEFORE research that should done.★Trekker (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duporü Vasa[edit]

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

I can't find anything online or within the article to prove that this person is a notable evangelist; fails WP:GNG and the article is almost purely WP:OR. Spiderone 16:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After searching without diacritics, I found an obituary (titled "Rev. Duporu Vasa passes away") in The Morung Express, but nothing else in English. As he's apparently from Nagaland, a search in some of the languages spoken there might be useful (but I don't know how to perform that search). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see where the article makes a WP:CCOS. It seems like he was a good, average, normal, unremarkable individual. // Timothy :: talk 13:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- His importance rests (if at all) in his being a pioneer in his field. While Christianity is a minority religion in India, Nagaland is overwhelmingly Christian, and more specifically Baptist, making him potentially an important (hence notable) person. The obituary calls him a "pioneer church leader among the Nagas". That ought to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is nothing in the article about him being a pioneer in his field, which I'm assuming is ministry or missions. Obits are very often flowery and usually not RS. If he was notable, there should be multiple RS and I don't see any. Most of this article is about his early life, not his Ministry career and that section is completely unreferenced. A good, average, normal, unremarkable individual. // Timothy :: talk 21:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obituaries in reliable sources are certainly acceptable secondary sources unless they are paid for and often have significant coverage. Ive often read harsh obituaries in national newspapers,, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person lacks the coverage in multiple in-depth reliable sources that they would need to be notable. I don't think flowery language in an obituary about them being a "pioneer" is enough. Nor is it enough if most of the coverage about them is in obituaries. They are fine to use to support a fact in an article, but not when it comes to arguing for a persons notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Whether the subject was a "pioneer" in anything to the degree of reaching notability, that's a matter for significant coverage in reliable sources, or meeting the standards of WP:BIO. He does neither; as Timothy says, he seems to have been a average, normal, unremarkable individual. Ravenswing 23:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep vote is unconvincing. In fact, it serves as a strong argument to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niloy Rashid Jaki[edit]

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

After repeated deletion and re-creation, I am taking this to AFD. The person is not notable. The cited sources do not show notability. Ignoring IMDB and Youtube, The Daily Star article is about Niloy Alamgir not this person. Other articles just having passing mentions. Requesting deletion and salting.

The article claims his second single was Har Kisi Ko, which is not true that is a Bollywood song. This is poorly sourced vanity article that does not even come close to meeting notability guidelines. Most of the content cannot be verified and quite possible are tall tales. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete. per above. --User:Fish and Korate (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Striking sock !vote[reply]

Delete non notable + WP:SALT --Devokewater @ 20:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 & G11 and WP:SALT. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand IMDB is not qualified as a source here, I've searched for books, songs and found many reliable sources like his songs from Spotify, Itunes, YouTube. Please don't delete or remove it. I am updating it time to time with reliables sources like books, songs, articles, scholar. Thanks a lot for the suggestion.27.147.231.2 (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Songs from Spotify, Itunes, and Youtube are anything but reliable sources. Technically, anyone is able to upload their music onto any of those platforms. GPL93 (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*keep Per above. Mogo803 (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Striking sock vote[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tinder Bhabi (web series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I did a google search but unable to find anything. Look at username, looks like someone from/associated with Bongo BD are creating those for promotional purpose. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This is a clear case of CSD, as the article ony have one source and that is of IMDB, and the page is promotional too. Dtt1^Talk 17:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is a puff piece, not an encyclopedic article.TH1980 (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, PR --Devokewater @ 10:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 18:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slowmo Solaiman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find anything other than some passing mentions. Look at username, looks like someone from/associated with Bongo BD are creating those for promotional purpose. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 07:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Naga surnames[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN as there is no evidence that this is a notable topic. Also, the list will have inclusion/exclusion issues. Would a surname possessed by one Naga person only still be noteworthy enough for inclusion? Spiderone 15:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Definitely needs work but legit list per WP:CLN, WP:NOTDUP states: "building a rudimentary list of links is a useful step in improving a list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks" and WP:AOAL lays out potential advantages. This is still very rudimentary and maybe not ready for mainspace, so Draftify might be an option. // Timothy :: talk 14:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And per appropriate topics for lists, we have "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value." and "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge." This article covers a topic that is too large, unverifiable and, most importantly, has no place in an encyclopaedia. Spiderone 14:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Spiderone re: The different lists of names that have been nominated. You are a lot more experienced that I am which made me really think about this, if a consensus begins to emerge for Delete, I would definitely reconsider. I can really see both sides of the argument and I went back and forth when I was thinking about it. What pushed me over into Keep was erring on the side of caution. This particular list is so underdeveloped that I could see it Deleted, the others would be a harder to sway me. Hope you are well. // Timothy :: talk 15:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen these lists on here for a few years but I've always wondered why we have never seen List of French surnames or List of English surnames and, for me, it's because such lists would be ridiculously long, generally unverifiable and you'd also have to question what value they would add to an encyclopaedia. Anyway, I'm interested to see how these AfDs go. Spiderone 06:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm with Spiderone's comment at 14:35 above and note that WP:CLN etc are just guidelines, not policies. Anyone can call themselves anything, and it is unlikely that any list of surnames supposedly of one particular group are in fact exclusive to that group. In some situations, it can give rise to BLP violations also (a common issue with surname articles - not lists, but like Topsy, these things tend to grow). Anyone who has spent a bit of time digging around even supposed top-notch references works such as the Oxford family names dictionaries will know that they are inconsistent even within themselves. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changed vote): I was reading this discussion Spiderone posted on a similar discussion and the mention of "List of Jewish names" startled me. I actually can't believe it didn't occur to me immediately what various lists of names that usually to belong to a particular group have been used for historically. This may not have occured to others as well. I know this was absolutely not in anyway the intention with these Wikipedia lists, but good intentions can be used by those with other than good intentions. This is enough for me to switch to Delete. I doubt there is a policy or guideline to directly support this reasoning, but per WP:IGNORE I think Delete is the best way to improve the encyclopedia. // Timothy :: talk 07:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Flower Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

I cannot see how this passes WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG and the article is full of original research. Spiderone 15:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-04 ✍️ 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fry family[edit]

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

Major WP:SYNTH issues. As the lead of this article says, "The Fry family is not one unitary genealogical entity, but rather many separate (often prominent) families with distinct genetic profiles and geographic origins." The article is just about various people with the last name Fry (or a related form) with a few attempts to make all of the various examples seem to have a related form. I'm finding some coverage for Fry family (chocolate), but nothing that actually deals with all people with the last name Fry as a specific historical origin. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTGENEALOGY "Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." The only topic here is a shared family name, none of whom achieve Wikipedia's definition of Notability. At best, Wikipedia has shared notable names, such as Kennedy, on a DAB page. — Maile (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete Fry family (chocolate), as it currently stands. 90% of that article is about the family genealogy, with very little content about the chocolate. Once you remove the genealogy stuff, I'm not convinced there is enough content remaining to qualify as a chocolate stand-alone. — Maile (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted, Fry family (chocolate) should be moved to the base page name. If there are other notable Fry families about which an article can be written, this title should be disambiguated. BD2412 T 01:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has gone from "Joseph Fry" (2003) (which had merged several Joseph Frys all related into one biography, including a posthumous marriage) to "Fry family (chocolate)" (2006) to "Fry family" (2012). Fry family (chocolate) (2014) was split off when Fry family became a catch all (see Talk:Fry_family). I would keep the chocolate version at its current name and have a redirect to it from Fry family just in case another prominent Fry family shows up (Fry is a common surname). Otherwise I fear it will become catch all again. I will note that I am distantly related to the Bristol Chocolate Frys in case that could be seen as a conflict of interest. --Erp (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTWEBHOST. This is not an article, it's an online version one of those crappy books that list every person with the last name of Fry. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I bang my head at the opening. This is not one family, we do not create articles on indicriminate groups of people grouped only by a shared last name by no shared heritage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above and agreeing with John Pack Lambert: the lead sentence and its declared scope of the article is bad news from the beginning. --Lockley (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Balaško[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Played in the Slovak Super League in 2008–09, but that league didn't become a WP:FPL until the following season. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would not pass any reasonable notability guideline for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played for Ružomberok. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 18:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sikka (film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2012. A duplicate article, Sikka (1989 film), was blanked and redirected to it in 2016. The Farsi equivalent also cites only IMDb, and the Marathi one noting at all. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing RS; the best result was a 2-line mention in a memorial piece to actor Kader Khan, who played a minor role. for which he was nominated for a Filmfare Award for Best Performance in a Comic Role; but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 16:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Webmaster. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Website overseer[edit]

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

Non-notable term for a purported occupation, in CAT:NN since July 2009. My WP:BEFORE search did not turn up anything besides a duplicative reference to someone's being a "website overseer" for the 1996 Clinton campaign (which I think was before search engine optimization even existed), some blog comments, and this spammy site. Created by WP:SPA Mrdavids in March 2009. I think it's time for this to go—but would appreciate being proved wrong. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Webmaster. Mccapra (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Webmaster as already said, or just delete if not. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Webmaster: Per Mccapra. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 18:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ustaad (1989 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb and a listing site which acknowledges IMDb since creation in 2016. A search turned up nothing WP:RS; the most promising find turned out to acknowledge IMDb as source. A search for the alternative title Conman (see the IMDb entry) turned up nothing either. The corresponding Hindi and Newari articles too cite only IMDb. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 16:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph D. Early Jr.[edit]

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

Local politician who fails WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:POLITICIAN; a local district DA falls well under the radar. Ravenswing 13:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable --Devokewater @ 20:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable politician. LefcentrerightDiscuss 07:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a local district attorney is not a level of significance that gets an automatic "inherent" notability freebie under our inclusion standards for either politicians or lawyers — so to qualify for an article, the bar that he would have to clear is being particularly well-sourced as much, much more nationally significant than most other local district attorneys. But that's not what this is showing. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most state district attorneys/county prosecutors (the term is different by state, and Massachusetts has counties with little direct identities) are not notable. The sourcing is not sufficiant to make Early an exception. USDAs are basically all notable, but these have jurisdication at the state level except in some larger states, so are in many ways like the federal equivalanet of state attorney generals, who are also all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article is notable with adequate WP:RS and thus passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mexicans in Germany[edit]

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

Too small for separate article, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not "too small" based on the current volume of the page. This is invalid justification for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the reliable 3rd party sourcing that provides indepth coverage is not there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perfectly good stub; no valid deletion criteria. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 12:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not too small and, in any case, that's not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. --Fish and karete (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Striking sock !vote[reply]

Keep: The article is at a respective size (and even a two-sentence stub wouldn't be prima facie grounds for deletion), and decently sourced; this isn't even stub-class, I'd rank it Start-class. Since it's been unchanged since months before the nomination, I'm frankly puzzled. Ravenswing 15:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid, notable topic with plenty of potential sources available. Puzzling indeed. --Lockley (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Raider[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Not enough sources. Sorry. --Fish and karete (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Striking sock impersonation !vote[reply]

Weak keep. I found and added to the article 16 book reviews, spread over multiple books. All but one are edited volumes (which is why my keep is weak) but even so I think it's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. I see lots of book reviews and articles online. Oddly, he has no social media presence. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw nom per arguments above and David's excellent improvements to this.Boleyn (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 18:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan Paulinyi[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Successful, but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. No reliable sources, no significant coverage. Just because he is "successful" he is not notable for WP. (Results on Google) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources found beyond namedrops and casual mentions. No help from the corresponding article on the Portuguese Wikipedia, which is scantier. Ravenswing 23:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Talbert[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years and 2 AfDs with no consensus - hoping this one will put the issue to bed once and for all. Last AfD was 11 years ago, so quite some time. He has some coverage, but I'd say this comes under WP:1E. Boleyn (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like slightly bizarre article about slightly bizarre character, not sufficiently notable to justify Wikipedia article. It might be different if his car engine modification had actual been put to use in the industry. PatGallacher (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 20:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician who has engaged in calculated acts to try to get undue publicity, but it has not panned out to actual attention at the level that would lead to notability. The fact that this article was allowed to pass two AfDs in 2009 just shows how we are still being hamstrung by the failure back then to exercise any discernment in weeding out articles on non-notable subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill, both as a politician and an inventor. In 2009, we could have excused this, but in 2020, everybody knows what Wikipedia is, and that's it's not Ballotpedia, nor a resume service, nor a collection of trivia, nor an online web-host for profit, nor an online soap-box. He tried very hard to game the system, but still lost. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 18:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding Bells (web series)[edit]

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

Removed PROD, article fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I did a google search but unable to find anything. Look at username, looks like someone from/associated with Bongo BD are creating those for promotional purpose. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 18:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Muciño[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pianist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources found beyond namedrops, and not notable enough to make the Spanish Wikipedia either, seemingly. Ravenswing 23:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Millington[edit]

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

Is an author and has some brief mentions, but doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years, hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see a lot of citations on Google scholar. Can anyone interpret that for us, and ping me? Bearian (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: @Bearian: I went through a few pages worth on those hits, and they all refer back to the same two works named in the article. I don't think that's quite enough myself to meet WP:AUTHOR, but others might have different POVs. Ravenswing 23:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - he has some citations, but I will go along with Ravenswing that I'm leaning to delete per WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, PROF#1 looks for more than two works. Ravenswing 01:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Also has been tagged for 11 years for notability with no sources being added. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Johansson[edit]

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

Very borderline - successful comedian with multiple roles, but not multiple notable roles. Notability not inherited from successful relatives. I couldn't establish that he does meet WP:NOTABILITY. This has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years, which is crazy - hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable comedian and writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not quite enough there there, and significant coverage lacking. Ravenswing 23:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing at any of the references except his own web site. North8000 (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as keep after new sources were added to the article (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 10:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Ahmed Hadi[edit]

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

This has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years; hopefully we can now resolve it one way or another. He has plenty of small mentions, but I don't see that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. Can't identify a good WP:ATD but open to ideas. Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't really know much about the Guantanamo detainees apart from what is documented about them during their incarceration and eventual transfer. This isn't perhaps the normal kind of coverage we'd look for in a biography but on the other hand there's no question that this group of individuals has received plentiful coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period. There maybe a case (which I don't support) for deleting all of them, but I don't see why this one in particular should be singled out. Mccapra (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mccapra - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people are not made notable by this level of coverage. This is an example of the POV pushing abuse to create directory style articles to publicize issues someone cared about we allowed Wikipedia to be subject to back in the 2000s. We need to stop this starting by removing POV-pushing plan articles like this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the sources support notability. Geo Swan (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG. Per sources. Notability isnt temporary.BabbaQ (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Jones (political consultant)[edit]

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

Plenty of mentions, and successful, but doesn't have the in-depth independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Nothing about his position as a political consultant makes him inherently notable, and he doesn't inherit the notability of those he works with/for. This has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years so hopefully we can get it resolved one way or the other now. Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the indepth coverage to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. Paradox society 03:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTINHERITED. He's worked for Black Rock, a political consulting firm, which in turn has worked for a bunch of campaigns. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Certainly a flurry of namedrops and casual mentions in the DC political bubble, but nothing substantive. Ravenswing 23:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is just brief mentions of him. Also, per Bearian. He's worked for Black Rock, a political consulting firm, which in turn has worked for a bunch of campaigns.North8000 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to House of Orléans-Braganza. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael of Orléans-Braganza[edit]

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

Not notable.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case for deletion Members of the former Imperial House of Brazil, which was deposed in 1889, are not inherently notable, we have a recent precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antônio de Orléans e Bragança. This looks like an example of a significant amount of "deposed monarchy cruft" on Wikipedia, treating deposed royal/imperial families as if they were still reigning. Sourcing looks trivial, and includes at least one dead link. The article claims that is expected that he will assert one of two claims to the Brazilian throne, but see WP:CRYSTAL. PatGallacher (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the subject has been profiled by one of Brazil's largest newspapers, O Estado de S. Paulo, and also by the most widely circulated German-language newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, I am fairly convinced that we should keep this one. He obviously takes his role as "prince" very seriously and it is not really WP:CRYSTAL to state that he is preparing to assume the claim. That is, after all, what the sources say. Surtsicna (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources about him appear once in a blue moon. He may take his role as "prince" very seriously, but the problem is that monarchist movements are very weak in Brazil, nobody (except very few monarchists) take it seriously. 1993 Brazilian constitutional referendum is an example of how weak monarchist movements are in Brazil. Almost nobody knows who he is because after more than 100 years that the throne does not exist, all these Brazilian princes have become basically normal people. They are not even close to celebrities in Brazil. Bolhones (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the sourcing (despite my just removing the scribd and blog refs) is just barely enough for general notability. However, I am strongly against including the Styles template, and the Princes of Orléans-Braganza navbox needs to be renamed to reflect these are titles in pretense for all but the first generation. JoelleJay (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being the next-in-line to the Brazilian throne is a strong reason for maintaining the article. Of course, it is not "as if they were still reigning", but it still is a subject worth Wikipedia information. The only reason for deletion could be that Prince Rafael is not presently the next-in-line but the third; however, he is the first in his generation, so deleting now the article and publishing it again in some time would be useless. Vadsf 95.235.88.91 (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is the serious possibility that he will outlive his father and his two uncles, but we don't know that yet. That is a weak argument for creating an article, that we might have to do some years in the future. At lot could have happened then, he might decide to renounce his claim to the Brazilian throne, or people might not care. PatGallacher (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to keep an article on someone without any actual claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m somewhat lost here, on whether the debate is on him being notable enough or whether his claim to be a prince is recognized. On both cases, it shows again how little people know about Brazil and how little they try to at least carry out a bit of research before commenting. There is a an article about Rafael on G1 (the internet news website of Globo, the largest media conglomerate in Brazil), in 2016. Link In the same year, he was mentioned in another article by The Wall Street Journal. Link Another article about him, now by the Correio Braziliense. Link. Another one at UOL: Link. He’s briefly mentioned in this article by Folha de São Paulo, Brazil’s largest newspaper. Link He appears in a more recent article about his father’s health in O Globo Link The Wikipedia article about him is a stub, but he’s noteworthy, clearly. --Lecen (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:ODD. There's plenty of possible sources as noted, and this is exactly the weird article that ends up on Wikipedia. I'm open to a merger with a related article. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:40F8:9318:5ED5:A6C4 (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete our merge to House of Orléans-Braganza. Monarchy was abolished from Brazil in 1889, and there are no signs of return. He is presented as being in the line of succession of a throne that does not exist any more (for more than 100 years), which means almost nothing nowadays: Zero political power. In 1993 people voted the possibility of changing the form and system of Government in Brazil to Monarchy or Parlamentarism and the result was that the vast majority of Brazilians did not want to change them that after more than 100 years of Republican Democracy. There are some sources about the "royal family", but several Newspaper News receive more coverage than any news about any member of the "Brazilian Royal Family". Once in a blue moon there is a news about some of them, which is far from significant. In Portuguese Wikipedia, several members in the line of succession of House of Orléans-Braganza were deleted, for instance 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (AFDs in Portuguese Wikipedia). Bolhones (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing just isn't there for the article to be notable and the line of succession to the throne that the person might have inherited does not exist anymore anyway. Which seems to be the main or only thing that would justify the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to House of Orléans-Braganza. Heck, this isn't even the heir to a long-defunct throne, but one of several "claimants." There are certainly title-worshipers on Wikipedia, but fanboyism doesn't set aside the provisions of the GNG and WP:BIO. Ravenswing 22:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Crop Information System[edit]

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

Some mentions, but doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Has been in CAT:NN for over 11years, so hopefully we can get it resolved one way or the other now. Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe I'm getting woozy, but I can't see what's wrong with this. It needs updating to say what happened to it (it seems to have been a project with a relatively short life) but there are adequate RIS supporting it. I'd be happy with a redirect if there's a suitable one. Mccapra (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed w/ Mccapra. I dug up a few sources and added them, plus a note about the project's discontinuation in 2011. I've also removed the notability tag as I believe it passes WP:GNG. Paradox society 04:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw nom Boleyn (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vageesh Jangam[edit]

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

A non-notable person. Promotional and mentions are PR. Not meeting WP:GNG - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR mentions are not references that verify notability. The young man is interesting, but not yet notable. Generally an airline pilot has to be exceptional to be notable Fiddle Faddle 08:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional with no solid claim of notability. Being the youngest at something isn't enough on its own. Mccapra (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The subject garnered a bit of news coverage for being the youngest person from India licensed to fly a Boeing 787, but nothing beyond that. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of promoters of the Rosary[edit]

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

Unref article without information as to why people are added, and seems to have a loosely-defined topic. Doesn't meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE and undefined list. Lightburst (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This was first created to preserve the contents of a deleted category. Not an objective focus, unmaintainable, indiscriminate, zero sources, zero context, not notable. --Lockley (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE the list selection criteria is not clearly stated, what promoters of the Rosary and associated with the promotion of the Rosary means is very vague. // Timothy :: talk 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard On-Demand Songs of 2017[edit]

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

List of number ones on a chart that doesn't seem notable (currently has a merge proposal). Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 list was already deleted in AfD. A bundle nomination of the rest of them would seem appropriate. Why one at a time? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of AfD voters are hostile to bundled nominations generally, and a number vote reflexively to reject them. The only one I've even dared to nominate myself for years was a recent NN band and articles on their equally NN albums. Ravenswing 22:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the list doesn't seem notable on it's own and Wikipedia isn't a directory. So, from what I can tell there's no guideline based reason to keep this article. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Adamant1. WP:NOTDIR. WP:NOT a notable category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wm335td (talk • contribs) 21:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Ravenswing 22:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taris (given name)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. I'm finding some coverage of this name, but mostly sites that give the frequency of this name, which isn't really WP:SIGCOV, and a handful of blogs stating "what your name really means". I'm not finding any individuals with Wikipedia articles that a given name page could be created, although there are a few with the surname Taris, so I guess Taris (surname) could be created as a surname page. However, this title would not be useful for that, as surname and given name have different meanings. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nobody in Wikipedia with that given name. I've added the two surname people to Taris. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about redirect to Taris (name), and mention that the article can be a given name and a surname, include the content already here, and include a list of the two people with the surname?Hydroxyzine-XYZ (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a separate page for either the surname or the given name, especially the latter. Taris is quite enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability. I wouldn't even suggest a merge to Taris Spiderone 22:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:MILL. We are not a directory of every single possible rare given name. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 06:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand politicians[edit]

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

Too high level for a list, better served by Category:New Zealand politicians and lists of officeholders. WP:SALAT "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections" Ivar the Boneful (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly defined list of notable people. WP:CLN states that categories and lists go hand in hand. You've answered your question with the "...unless they are split into sections" bit. Maybe discuss how to split it (if needed) on the talkpage instead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Whether it's turned into a list of lists, or organized through different subheaders, is a matter of development, not deletion. There are also always going to be notable politicians who don't fit into office-specific lists, either because there aren't enough notable examples for a particular office, or because they're the occasional failed candidate who never held office of any kind but nevertheless passes notability standards. So broad lists may be the only way to capture those individuals. And there's also a possible argument to make for having a master index so people don't have to navigate through dozens of subcategories or sublists. postdlf (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Absurd nomination. See Category:Lists of politicians by nationality which show that we have similar lists for every nation. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a clean-up issue. There is nothing wrong with having a list of New Zealand politicians, however it does need to be presented better. Ajf773 (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep clearly notable and fulfills WP:NLIST Lightburst (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. I might disagree, but the longstanding consensus is to keep such broad lists. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Saraceno[edit]

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

Possibly one of the most embarrassing autobios ever. Has a Bad Case of Inexplicable Capitalization Disorder, with WP:INTOTHEWOULDS as a severe complication. Sample:

In ninth grade, Saraceno would forge lifelong business and physical fitness mentorship relationship under Dorney Park and Wildwater Kingdom partner Robert Plarr. Saraceno credits Plarr for demonstrating to him the power of mentorships; this would create the template for Saraceno’s personal philosophies, and would go on to serve as the basis for his book, The Theory of 5.
Saraceno met his first wife, Julie, when he was 17 years old. They later married and had two daughters, Tia and Taylor. In 2000, at age 38, his first wife filed for divorce. Five months following his divorce, Saraceno would meet his soon-to-be second wife, Lisa, through a common friend. Saraceno and Lisa would later marry.
Saraceno would endure various personal tragedies in the years that followed: Lisa would twice battle cancer; his family had to face the premature deaths of his 19-year-old nephew and godson, Michael, and 29-year-old stepson, Brandon; he would experience the sudden deaths of three close friends; his parents would separate after 56 years of marriage, and his father Angelo would be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease (for whom Chris would assume responsibility for as main caregiver). Saraceno cites these events as major factors where The Theory of 5’s philosophy of using life’s tragedies to strengthen and improve one’s outlook would prove essential.

Like it says at WP:AUTOBIO:

Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."

E Eng 02:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC) P.S. An undisclosed paid editor has been spamming the subject's book as well: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Theory_of_5 and [15][reply]

Delete. Sources too trivial for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This fellow manages car dealerships established and owned by other people. He also wrote a self-help book. Despite the claim that it is an "Amazon No. 1 best-selling self-help book", it appears that no professional book reviewer has chosen to or been assigned to review the book in any reliable source. I have not been able to find any significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. This is an overtly promotional BLP of a non-notable person, which is either an autobiography or the product of undisclosed paid editing. In either case, the conflict of interest is glaring, and the person is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 10:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a delusional car dealer who fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delusional seems a bit strong. Let's just say self-aggrandizing. E Eng 13:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not notable. Giant Snowman 13:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We really, really, really need to start requiring all new articles to go through AfC. If we do not do that than we need to at least stop allowing first edits to be article creation and to make at least all first user submissions go through AfC and to not allow a non-AfC user submission until they have had an article created through AfC. The second plan would not stop all autobiographies, but make the path to one harder and hopefully mean the editors thingking of creating them would have come to understand self-promotion is not the purpose of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think what we really, really, really need to do is start an article List of nonnotable nobodies who actually thought people would want to read about them in Wikipedia articles. E Eng 01:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Canyon, California[edit]

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

Not a community, it is literally a canyon. Even GNIS calls it a canyon. Durham's Place-Names of the San Francisco Bay Area calls it a canyon. Gudde calls it a canyon. It is only notable as the setting for the Vicente Martinez Adobe. This fact is captured in the related article. Glendoremus (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update - article has been edited to correctly identify it as a canyon and not a community. Glendoremus (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment The notability of the canyon itself is borderline: there are numerous references to it, but I cannot find much that talks about the canyon in its own right at any much length. It does encompass not only the John Muir Site, but also a substantial public park and a wilderness area held by the John Muir Land Trust. Both of these sites talk about the canyon, a little. I'm still not quite convinced that an article needs to exist, but the current "unincorporated community" claim is baldly wrong and was put there because someone was careless and made a bad assumption when updating the article to actually say what Franklin Canyon is. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The park is actually a different Franklin Canyon in Beverly Hills. –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I do see that the wilderness area is in the area, though quite a ways to the west. For now I'm leaning delete. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep John Muir Land Trust describe it as one their most important projects with many significant features. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I waited a pretty long time for someone to post the sources this needs to be notable so I could vote keep, but it never happened. So, delete it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local conservation group has protected a number of local properties, but there doesn't appear to be notability in every landform; perhaps mergable to Martinez, CA or Glen Frazer, California. Reywas92^Talk 03:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of geographical features without Wikipedia articles that are more notable than Franklin Canyon. However, most of them don't meet notability guidelines either. It doesn't make sense to keep this article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing inherently notable in being a hole in the ground. ——Serial 16:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timber Trails, California[edit]

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

Another entry from a promotional map, things are clarified considerably first by the observation that the location shifts around quite a bit upon its appearance on the topos, but more so when, looking at GMaps, one sees a large settled area just to the east, among which is a marker for the Calaveras Timber Trails Association, whose pages explain that it is "a private, member-owned camping community". This considerable RV park (there are some 500 spaces) is the actual Timber Trails; there is no predecessor settlement. All I can find out about it besides what's on its website are the usual things one sees for such a facility. Mangoe (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Worthless junk as usual. Reywas92^Talk 03:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable community. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus here that none of the available sources are considered reliable, and therefore the subject fails the notability standards. If better sources can be found this article can be restored and approved through the AFC process. – bradv🍁 03:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simron Upadhyay[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. One program is not sufficient to justify Actor Notability. It must have multiple significant roles in different programs and it has only one. fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. DMySon 07:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several articles in Times of India. May have other articles in Hindi, etc.Knox490 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon 07:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi,

I am Nalbarian, creator of the page "Simron Upadhyay".

This is an article about a famous artist Simron Upadhyay. She is much popular for her roles in Belgali TV and Film in West Bengal, India and Bangladesh.

References for this articles are given from leading news papers of India. You are requested to consider this articles. If any improvement needed, please advice.

Her other notable works are:

She started her career in Dance Bangla Dance(2009-2010)

Other Works (TV): 1)Raage Anuraage

2)Bedini Moluyar kotha

3)Care korina

4)Thik jeno love story

5) Ki kore toke bolbo

6) Ke Apon ke por

Movies: 1) Suitcase

2) Classroom

3) Raja raani raaji

Award-Star paribar Jury award for Care Korina

Kindly give me a day to add these works, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalbarian (talk • contribs) 08:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, article has been modified. Please review and close the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalbarian (talk • contribs) 04:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep She is followed & adored by millions of fans from West Bengal and Bangladesh. Simron Upadhyay's co-actress Pallavi Sharma's wiki page is already approved (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallavi_Sharma) . They both have appeared same TV series and have equal notability and fan base. Let's talk and take action on this page in a logical way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalbarian (talk • contribs) 06:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of non-trivial in-depth coverage about the person in multiple reliable sources. It seems like the ones in the article aren't that great. For instance one about their birthday and another about how they said to help people during a crisis don't really pass WP:NACTOR. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it seems the main claim to notability is who they have allegedly worked with in the past but notability is not inherited; I can't see WP:GNG being met at all Spiderone 14:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Help Needed Hi, I'm the creator of this page. Can I add references from Bengali news articles and YouTube? (Nalbarian (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Bengali article from a reliable news source is fine but YouTube certainly would not Spiderone 13:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review Any conclusion on this page? Article has been updated with maximum possible references. I think you can take a decision now. Nalbarian (talk • contribs)
Comment The main problem is that the references appear fine until you look at them The Times of India's entertainment pages are not a helpful reference because they have been deprecated at WP:RSN and the other source looks similar. If the verdict is delete please can we do this without prejudice to future re-creation via AFC. The creating editor was previously unaware that sources do not need to be online. Fiddle Faddle 15:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd be fine with it being recreated in the future if there is sources to support it's notability. That said, it should totally be with caveat that it has to go through the AfC process and I'd suggest that whoever re-creates it puts the effort into finding good sources before doing so everyone's time isn't wasted. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources, and none presented by the keep proponents. Ravenswing 22:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audu Paden[edit]

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

Non-notable producer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Passing mentions only in news sources, only substantial coverage is on non-RS social networks. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 15:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 15:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources exist though most not in English. Balle010 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment where? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 12:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently noteworthy. He may not be a publicity hound, but this is still a silly nomination. — Kaz (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please explain how this makes the article exempt from WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 12:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete at best one source might add toward GNG, but that requires more than one source. Wikipedia is built on verrifiability, so we cannot keep an article unless people have included the relevant sources in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG but am willing to switch vote upon Balle010's delivery of references. I can only find incidental mentions in articles mentioning work that he has worked on but not significant coverage of him as the subject. — BriefEdits (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment here are some sources: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3] Balle010 (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the person fails WP:GNG due to lacking in-depth coverage about them in multiple reliable sources. Since all the sources I've seen, including the ones here, seem to be extremely trivial mentions. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, prolific director/producer with many credits. See Books. Someone should add references to the article: they exist. Wm335td (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provided are trivial coverage, and no one has been able to come up with anything better, including the purported other-languange sources. Fails GNG. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Drives me nuts when people are challenged to come up with significant coverage, throw up a handful of namedrops and/or casual mentions, and no doubt smile triumphantly. This is the case here: I've not seen a single source presented that provides the subject with significant coverage. Ravenswing 22:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is American, working in the US. If there were reliable, independent sources I would expect them freely available in English. All we have is suggestions that foreign language sources may exist. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Ifnord (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Power Pirate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable unsigned local band, one step up (maybe) from garage band Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Presence of some sources seems to me to indicate some notability. Balle010 (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington D.C.-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Read the Post stuff, which was positive, but didn't find much else... Caro7200 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just another NN band. Nothing to see here people, just move along. Couldn't find anything besides the same old unreliable sites (you know the drill: WP mirrors, databases, social media, and stuff where the words are separated). By the way "Power Pirate" is not the easiest name to search for as these are very common words and adding "band" did not help much either. Most of the results were about another band called "Pirate Power Band", pirates and all this stuff, but there were very few results about this band - and those few were unreliable. I also tried searching for their only album, Plane Ticket (wow, what a special name too!) and the results were streaming service links, databases, trivial mentions/name checks (mostly WP mirrors which mirror the Power Pirate article) and one album announcement. The rest of the results are again, just the words separated in random other stuff. So, to summarize: no reliable sources whatsoever. They may be present on streaming service and social media pages, but those don't grant any notability. Btw this page had an AfD back in 2009 and it was deleted because it wasn't notable back then either. That AfD had a lot of sockpuppets and SpAs protesting to keep the article. And then it was re-created in 2010 and since then it managed to stay on WP, with no reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm closing as keep after new sources were found. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 10:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Long Beach[edit]

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

NN band, fails the GNG and WP:NBAND. No substantive coverage in reliable sources beyond namedrops, interviews (explicitly debarred by NBAND C#1) and casual mentions. Notability tagged for over a decade. Prodded in 2009, and removed by an anon IP with the edit summary “THIS ARTICLE SHOULD NOT BE DELETED” Ravenswing 16:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 16:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 16:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found these and these sources which establish notability. Besides they are signed to Victory Records which is a notable label. And they seem to be a big name in ska/ska punk circles as many publications, both reliable and unreliable, mention them (and I know mentioning is not enough), but it seems they are an important name. There are also short news about them. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That first source is their Allmusic bio, which is not reliable. The second certainly is extensive enough ... if "punknews.org" is a reliable source. Being signed to a label doesn't meet any of the NBAND criteria; only having two or more albums released on that label does, and the subject only released one before its demise. Ravenswing 08:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Allmusic is a reliable source when the page contains a biography. When it does not, it isn't reliable indeed. Punknews.org is a reliable source as well. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the list of WikiProject Music reliable and unreliable sources Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources which confirm that AllMusic and Punknews are reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as the Punknews piece , Allmusic staff written bio and staff album review here. Will search for more sources tomorrow, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found these extra ones: Exclaim, Punktastic, Daily Breeze, OC Weekly, OC Register, and OC Register, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. Caro7200 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources of sufficient quality have come to light. Haukur (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Heights, California[edit]

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

This one is a bit of a challenge. GNIS places it in an unincorporated area north of Alamo but none of the topo maps that I can find puts anything there. There are a couple of minor hits that indicate Walnut Heights as a neighborhood of Walnut Creek and there is a Walnut Heights School on the east side of Walnut Creek (miles from where GNIS puts Walnut Heights). Durham doesn't mention it at all. If we can't even say with assurance what it is and where it is, I propose we delete it. Certainly doesn't meet basic notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Searching newspapers.com for "Walnut Heights Contra Costa" yields a bunch of trivial classified ads. Searching Google Books for "Walnut Heights Contra Costa" find references to the school. Walnut Heights, Californai is not notable. 23:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Haukur (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguayans in Germany[edit]

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

Too small for separate article, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait - some extra material and references added. --Fadesga (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mexicans in Germany and WP:ATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Haukur (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Werner, California[edit]

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

This one is obscure. Durham calls it a locality on the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad. Topo maps going back as far as 1916 shows nothing more than a couple nearby structures. I can't find anything saying it was a community or even a railroad facility. Current satellite photo shows a large farm on the site next to the railroad. Whatever it is (or was), there's no indication that it meets notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - searches online reveal there might be a couple of active shops, but I can't find if anybody actually lives, there. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of being a notable community, could be mentioned with Discovery Bay, California, now being within the CDP. Reywas92^Talk 04:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No post office. I found one trivial reference about residents. Cxbrx (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SNOW Keep and a procedural close. Consider merging but AfD is really not the venue for this. Seddon ^talk 14:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of Yorkshire[edit]

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

This article should be merged into Yorkshire, since most of the information in the History section of that article is in this article. JTZegers (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I see no problem with having a separate article that covers the history in much greater depth than can or should be done as part of the Yorkshire article. The prehistory section, for example, is far longer than would be suitable if merged. However, as the section in the Yorkshire article should be a summary of the History article I think that both articles need some improvement and reworking so that they both follow the same basic format in terms of headings for themes covered. Also I am not sure why has it been proposed for deletion rather than using the ((merge)) template. EdwardUK (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a very good article, this is a WP:SIZESPLIT --Devokewater @ 10:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If most of the information in this article were in the history section of the Yorkshire article, then you'd have an argument for merging. This just looks like a WP:SIZESPLIT to me. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 10:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There is a ton of literature on the history of Yorkshire, establishing it beyond doubt as a distinct topic. The article on Yorkshire as a whole should be broader than just the history. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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