< 9 August 11 August >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Salvio 09:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eightydays[edit]

Eightydays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company article reads like native advertising. The sources are a mixture of unreliable (Forbes Contributor), promotional adapted press releases and minor coverage, so it does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorrow3 is the creator of the article, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:59, 18 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. Salvio 09:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dog and Bitch Island[edit]

Dog and Bitch Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From what I can tell, this island no longer exists. It does not appear on recent satellite imagery or on the GNIS site(GNIS link was broken). I think it's entirely possible that this "small, marshy island" has been swept away by hurricane(s), as some recent edits claim. AviationFreak💬 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: That Geological Survey Bulletin appears to be from the 60s. To clarify, I'm suggesting deletion on the basis that this island(s) no longer exist, not that they never had existed or were not notable. The article from 2015 is an interesting read, but edits from 2018 & 19 suggest the islands to be gone. Obviously Wikipedia edits are not the best places to find information about the existence of geographic features, so I'll probably call the MD Archives tomorrow and ask about the current existence of the island(s) to see if their website is still up to date. AviationFreak💬 03:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not temporary. Wikipedia does not delete because the subject ceases to exist. Historical geography is important too. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Gene93k; per WP:NTEMP, an article doesn't lose notability because the island no longer exists. The sources I posted were to address the notability of the article. I think we have enough sources to show it is notable, per WP:GEOLAND. Z1720 (talk) 17:47, 11 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, per improvements to the article and the subsequent evolution of consensus. BD2412 T 16:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thoothukudi (film)[edit]

Thoothukudi (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no reliable sources for this film. Sify does not count. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi @TamilMirchi: can I know why Sify does not count? any way there are more references added to the article. I don't see any need to delete this article -- Balaji (Let's talk) 03:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Balajijagadesh: There has to be two reliable reviews for a page to exist. There is only one if Sify counts.TamilMirchi (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, the film is noted on those sources only because it is notable. If the film wasn't notable, the names won't feature. Neutral Fan (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article cannot be speedy closed because there is a delete vote apart from your nomination Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 16 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 09:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aadu Puli Attam (2006 film)[edit]

Aadu Puli Attam (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, unknown film. I couldn't find any sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:06, 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Sparta earthquake[edit]

2020 Sparta earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor earthquake of no lasting importance. Zero casualties. Zero damage. Completely unnotable. Veggies (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Veggies (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant East Coast, my bad. Love of Corey (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a minor quake may have set a record within an arbitrary political boundary does not give it any lasting impact. -- Veggies (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. Count the number of earthquakes that you remember from the East Coast with your hands. Love of Corey (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. My memory (as if that was rational criteria) is not how we determine notability on Wikipedia. -- Veggies (talk)
My memory is that the uniqueness of the event is a determining factor on notability at Wikipedia. Love of Corey (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not the only standard at play here. This minor incident does not meet the criteria for events to justify a stand-alone article. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This tiny tremor is not conceivably the catalyst for anything. -- Veggies (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was not a tiny tremor. A magnitude 3 or lower is a tiny tremor. This impacted the majority of the southeast. Webecoolalasdair (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of these sources are easily accessible and visible in a quick Google News search of the article's title. AviationFreak💬 22:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that the event was covered in the news. I'm disputing that this minor incident is notable. Remember that Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. -- Veggies (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect to list instead. It certainly doesn't merit a stand-alone article. -- Veggies (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they should, but every topic has to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. I don't know of any notability guidelines that make any earthquakes 5.0+ notable. We'd probably have an earthquake article every day. -- Veggies (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying that this earthquake is notable just because it's a M 5+. It's notable because it's exceedingly rare, sets a historical record, and was felt by hundreds of thousands of people. Although the magnitude plays a part in it's notability, it is obviously not the sole factor. Also, this section is for gaining consensus, not for you to argue every little comment justifying this article's preservation. GyozaDumpling (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum—according to USGS's PAGER as of this writing, approximately 35000 people had felt moderate or stronger shaking—intensities where the earthquake can cause structural damage. I will not argue against the rarity of the event as a factor of notability—however, in my opinion, the effects and aftermath of this event is not considered significant enough to support the notability clause. Tinh1000000 (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification—by scientific notability, I am referring to scholarly articles published on the subject of this specific event. Tinh1000000 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed somebody said that if magnitude 5 earthquakes must be notable, then a magnitude 5 earthquake article would appear every day on Wikipedia. While that would be true, the fact is that the majority of magnitude 5s are not notable. I would go so far as to say some magnitude 7s are not even notable. It all depends on the locale, the type of damage caused, the rarity of the event, the magnitude, the effects on the impacted population, was the earthquake underwater or above, how deep was the earthquake, how remote was the earthquake, how populated the impacted region was, the type of geologic structures involved, the notoriety of the region to have earthquakes (California has a high notoriety, thus a magnitude 5 is not as notable there, granted unless it occurs in close proximity to a large population center, as one in North Carolina, which has a low notoriety.), response from the scientific community, among other reasons that I fail to think of right now. To say the least, it is very nuanced.
Now to go the notability of this specific earthquake, I would agree that at first glance, one may believe that this event was not notable, due to the lack of initial damage reports, and that can be seen near the top of the article. However, this type of event plays out over time, and only after the span of a few days, can one begin to really understand what has happened with all the facts and evidence laid before them. This earthquake did cause significant damage in the area, was located in a very populated region and felt by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. It was a shallow earthquake. It was a rare event, as events of this size occur on the east coast every few decades (the fact that it occurred a mere 9 years after the Virginia earthquake is uncommon indeed), and is one of the largest, at magnitude 5.1, to occur in the region, much less east of the Mississippi River. The earthquake was along one of the Blue Ridge Anticlinorium thrust faults, depicted through motion tensor diagrams. This is a significant geologic structure, responsible for raising the Blue Ridge 250 million years ago, and the faults in question are exceptionally large ones. As a result of this, it may garner significant scientific attention due to the possibility of fault reactivation. The population of the region, especially within 100 miles of the event, and a significant number outside that radius will remember this event for a long time. It has historical significance, being the largest earthquake to strike the state since 1916 an earthquake also in western North Carolina. This alone may cause debate as to whether the earthquake hazard maps need to be revised to match with historic seismicity in the region, as most of the larger NC earthquakes have occurred in the western part of the state. Time will tell if this occurs, but it is a possibility. The same thing was done in Oklahoma during the 2010s with the devastating earthquake swarm there, and the same was done in Virginia after the 2011 earthquake. Regardless, more information will come out for this earthquake over time, and will make the event more notable than it is now. One must have patience for earthquakes, as they take time to process.
I came to Wikipedia because I noticed the lack of notable earthquake articles in Wikipedia. There are so many significant historical seismic events in the United States that do not have so much as a single article. Most of them are in the east, or at least not in California. Fortunately, efforts to fill in these gaps are picking back up. I will be taking part in these efforts. I am troubled by the amount of discord because an earthquake as notable as this is even more notable than the majority of articles on earthquakes in the United States. Just because a house didn't collapse or a person didn't die does notmake an earthquake unnotable. There may have been half a dozen earthquakes east of the Rocky Mountains that exceed North Carolina's in notability. If that is the case, then either Wikipedia's notability rules should be modified to fit scientific notability rules, or Wikipedia should take down at least 80% of United States earthquake articles. This earthquake is nearly as notable as the 2018 Anchorage earthquake, and should be treated as such.
On that note, notable earthquakes can be:
  • Magnitude 3.5 or less: not notable in any form
  • Magnitude 3.5 to 4.5: Not notable unless in extreme circumstances
  • Magnitude 4.5 to 6: Somewhat notable; check situation
  • Magnitude 6 to 7.5: Usually notable; check situation
  • Magnitude 7.5+: Notable unless in extreme circumstances
Here I stand, and let this be an example to the entire earthquake community. There must be more transparency on earthquake notability. If Wikipedia rules to delete this article, then grounds to delete the majority of other events now exist as well. If they do so, then Wikipedia will lose a lot of valuable information. I came here due to the lack of articles on notable earthquakes. I now wonder that the lack of this is not due to neglect, but possibly by Wikipedia's stringent rules on notability. If they do delete this, I will not stand by it, and my work as an editor here, and my purpose to fill in the gaps that I saw will be for naught. But I am not Wikipedia. I only want to make Wikipedia a better place. Thank you.Webecoolalasdair (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It will have a lasting effect on the town's history. This earthquake damaged dozens of homes and has lead to the demolition of quite a number due to unsafe hazards. The news is all over this. I do support a link to the list of earthquakes in 2020 however, but not deletion. This is too significant an event. Earthquake Maestro (talk) 16:03, 13 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 merge to Iron Man's armor#In other media. T. Canens (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man's armor in other media[edit]

Iron Man's armor in other media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a collection of largely uncited, trivial information about different variations of a notable character's costume. The costume itself is sufficiently covered in Iron Man#Armor. The sources that are present in this article are mainly comic book issues and films, and not to critical discussion about the article topic.

While there might be a small amount of information here that can be moved to the main article, the vast majority of it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: Merge what exactly? A full merge of such a long convoluted article? And why to Iron Man's armor, why not to Iron Man in other media? Also, what if Iron Man's armor is deleted in the other afd? - hako9 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure exactly as the overall topic is huge and consists of many articles – see ((Iron Man)). The main thing to decide here is that deletion is not appropriate per WP:ATD and WP:IGNORINGATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 11 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. Salvio 09:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man's armor[edit]

Iron Man's armor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a collection of largely uncited, trivial information about different variations of a notable character's costume. The costume itself is sufficiently covered in Iron Man#Armor. The sources that are present in this article are mainly comic book issues, and not to critical discussion about the article topic.

While there might be a small amount of information here that can be moved to the main article, the vast majority of it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE/NOTPLOT. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:16, 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. Salvio 10:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Leo Marcos[edit]

Francis Leo Marcos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marcos appears to be a somewhat popular YouTuber (but not notable enough as a YouTuber) who then got in trouble with the law over an obscure Optometry Law violation, the details of which violation do not yet appear to have been revealed by authorities. There's really not a lot to build a biography on here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:04, 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 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. Salvio 10:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Alvarez[edit]

Monique Alvarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sourcing here does not lead to a pass of GNG. It tends towards things like college reporting on her, not the type of fully indepdent and indepth sourcing that passes GNG. There is also a lack of anything that would add up to multiple significant roles in notable productions. A search for additional sources found absolutely nothing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2011-02 restored, 2011-02 G6
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shannah Trailor[edit]

Shannah Trailor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. BLPPROD-eligible when created, and was contested. The page had one footnote at the time I found it, which was a Worldcat link, but that on its own doesn't help notability, since Worldcat catalogues any book in any library (really, any media item in any library). I'm not seeing reviews/interviews/etc., but my WP:HEY standard is pretty low, so please inform if any are found. Chubbles (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 13 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) 20:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin Drader[edit]

Darrin Drader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I went through this and removed all the unsourced or poorly sourced information, and was left with only a two sentences, all of which are sourced to the vague "RPG Database", which isn't itself a reliable source.

Searching for him produces only one possible bit of information and it's an entry in a police blotter and that may not even be him. Jorm (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Young (pornographic actress)[edit]

Sarah Young (pornographic actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a porn actress without any good sources. The porn award win would not have satisfied the now deprecated PORNBIO SNG, and it makes no well-sourced claim of passing WP:ENT. An independent search for sources yielded trivial mentions and an entry on a list of 25 hottest porn stars (ISBN 87-7357-961-0 found in 3 libraries). Not sufficient to pass WP:BASIC. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 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. BD2412 T 05:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Mashally[edit]

Mohamed Mashally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I struggle to find ways that he is notable before his death. I see many Google News hits that are boiler plate articles about his death, but I don't see anything that makes him truly notable. only (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 19:12, 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 redirect to Jiaqing Emperor. Salvio 10:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Concubine Chun[edit]

Imperial Concubine Chun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge and Redirect to Jiaqing Emperor. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Similar article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concubine En was recently redirected.   // Timothy :: talk  04:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Concubines of the Jiaqing Emperor. I expect there will be some more information about at least some of these women. The material as it stands isn’t enough to support a series of stand-alone articles but there is enough for a single article with a couple of paras in each of them.Mccapra (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge/redirect targets are different
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 19:00, 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. Salvio 10:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nalamdhana[edit]

Nalamdhana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, unknown film. I couldn't find any notable reviews/sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:58, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ictognathus[edit]

Ictognathus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Ictognathus, no reference to the genus in reliable sources, article was originally cited to a TripAtlas mirror of the Wikipedia article for Carnivoramorpha. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, this hoax appears to have originated on the Dutch Wikipedia with this revision of the Miacidae article by Erik R on the 22 March 2005, this was then copied and transferred to other wikis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the discussion the references appear to be mistranscriptions of the conodont genus Elictognathus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:46, 11 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) 20:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Burke (musician)[edit]

Chris Burke (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Almost certain autobiography (who else would have known that aged 11 he found a Sony Walkman on the way home from school...?) and no evidence of notability. AllMusic just displays a track listing with his name as writer, but no evidence that the band or their songs were notable. The New Music Weekly and Music Existence sources are identical, and the latter states that it is a press release. The Issue Wire source is another press release – the website actually states that it is a self-marketing tool. The Exiled Robin is a reproduction of one tweet on a football blog, totally irrelevant to his career. And The News Front is yet another press release, but this time for his former business, which has nothing to do with his current music productions. So all the sources provided are press releases probably written by the artist himself, or his management. Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 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. Salvio 10:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Melnyk[edit]

Anton Melnyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:BIO. Mitte27 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 16:24, 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. Sandstein 07:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestral background of presidents of the United States[edit]

Ancestral background of presidents of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Taking to AFD since a PROD was contested. To be honest, the only non-trivial detail when assessing ethnic lineages of Presidents as a whole is how Barack Obama so far is the only one to have African ancestry. Nothing about the others' heritage is a defining trait aside from how everyone else purely had European aka Caucasian heritage. How many were of specific European ethnicities like Dutch, English, Irish, or Welsh is superfluous detail. We're better off saving heritage details on each President for their individual articles. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of Presidential trivia unlike, say, a Wikia or other website dedicated to US Presidents. It also isn't something dedicated to people's ancestries. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to have misunderstood my point (though I apologize for any offenses and none were intended): I wasn't saying the Isles themselves are trivial, just that specifics on which European nation(s) the fully white Presidents have had ancestors from isn't really a defining trait for them (i.e. not key characteristics about them that stand out), especially compared to their actions in office. Obama is a different case because of his black father and white mother, and he's known for being the first person of African descent to take office, breaking the streak of only white men being elected. That was widely celebrated as a racial milestone. I can't say the same for Trump being ethnically Scottish or how JFK had Irish lineage. It's not like they were the first presidents to have ancestors from those nations. Both are men with purely Caucasian heritage just like the others. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for my ignorance on the term "Caucasian"; I previously thought it was just a synonym for having ancestors from Europe. Going into specifics, I fail to see how Andrew Jackson not having English ancestry unlike previous Presidents is even half as important for him as things like his military endeavors or being involved with Native American genocide. Similarly, I doubt people know Martin Van Buren for his Dutch lineage nearly as much as they do for how he served as Jackson's VP or even his time as a New York Senator. How exactly is JFK having Irish heritage "a major development"? The Peace Corps, Bay of Pigs invasion, and Cuban Missile Crisis are bigger parts of his reputation. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a confusing argument. You seem to be saying that a president's ancestry doesn't matter because it's not what they're most famous for. JFK being Irish-Catholic was, of course, extremely important, but obviously not as notable as the Cuban Missile Crisis or his assassination. pburka (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More specifically, I'm saying that Presidents' actions and even having 100% European heritage in general is much more defining for them than what specific nations their ancestors came from. In other words, the precise countries of their ethnic origins aren't key traits that really stand out for them. As far as I can tell, anybody outside of Wikipedians like us or genealogists who do make notes of certain ancestors tend to just give it a minor mention if anything (unless maybe it's a piece on the men talking about their own families). Obama is an exception because he is the first to be of African descent (half black and half white to be exact) and that was publicly celebrated for breaking the monotony of purely white men getting elected. Did JFK break any streaks of which European territories elected men came from? The answer is no when other men with Irish ancestry had previously been elected. I don't see how having family from that country is a very important for the guy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As JPL pointed out, the other presidents with Irish heritage were all Protestants. JFK was the first Irish-Catholic and the first Catholic president. It really was a big deal. pburka (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Religious affiliation is a separate matter from what place(s) one's ancestors came from. JPL's comment actually had nothing to do with being Catholic vs Protestant. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to read a bit more about Irish history if you think "religious affiliation is a separate matter from what place(s) one's ancestors came from." And if you really think JFK's Irish heritage wasn't important, you could refer to The Irish Brotherhood or The Kennedys: America's Emerald Kings. pburka (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point (in case it hadn't already been clear) was that being noted for one's religion isn't the same as being noted for where their ancestors came from. While I'm well aware that many people with Irish heritage are Catholic or Protestant, it's not like they're inherently connected. This means one can have ancestors from there without even being religious and they can practice Catholicism/Protestantism without having any family from Ireland. As for JFK, I doubt his religion or ethnic origins are among the first things that come to people's minds when they think of him, even if there are writings discussing such characteristics. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I do. It would be an oversimplification to assume that having a certain ethnicity automatically equates to observing one religion or another. Turning the focus back to this article, though, I still wouldn't call ethnic origins a key trait for JFK or other fully white Presidents the way I would for Obama. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is because you are mired in presentism. Martin van Buren was raised in a community where Dutch was the primary language spoken. There is a whole set of ideas and images associated with Ulster Scotts that associate them with dueling, etc. Many of the ideas later used to marginalize African-Americans were first used to marginalize the true Irish (as opposed to Scotts living in Ulster or English people who had lived for generations in Ireland). In the ethnic splits in Ireland it was not about actually following your religion or attending a Church, these were clearly ethnic breaks. Your arguments come off as racist, and you ignore that Wikipedia does not categorize people by race, only by ethnicity. I would argue that Americans understand ethnic groups we just use inprecise terms. This is why the Albanians, Italians, Greeks, Romanians, Ukrainians and especially Chladeans and Arabs at my school rejected the label of white, well some of the Italians. It is because they were using "white" as a term that should be really rendered as "ethnically (not ancestrally) Anglo American". It does not matter where you ancestors came from, and merely speaking English at home is not enough. It is accepting the social and cultural basicis of American culture. Because of racial rules, no not phenotyypically white American can function as such, however it is an ethnic group, so that my friend who is a not so long ago immigrant from Sweden does not count as such, nor do most immigrants from Germany. Children of such immigrants in the current day and age can count as such today probably, but clearly would not have 100 years ago. As I said look at the pre-1965 immigrantion policies. They excluded every immigrants from the "Asia Pacific Triangle" but had no limit what soever to black immigrants from the Caribbean and Latin America. There were no quotas on immigraiton from such places, and this matters. There were ludicrously low limits on immigrants from countries like Italy and Greece. The true Caucasians come from countries like Georgia, Abkhazia, Chchnya and Dagestan. No president of the US has been remotely Caucasian, but I am pretty sure Stalin was. I have heard people speak of who is "white" and exclude Russians from it. This is because they are using white to mean that "ethnically (not ancestrally) Anglo-American". However before the 1950s Catholics were default excluded from the term, and most people would still argue Jews are a distinct ethnic group. Keep in mind religious terms are often used to designate groups by ethnicity not religion. The Jews are a key case of this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how my arguments come off as racist (that definitely wasn't what I aimed for), but my most recent comment was simply pointing out that the nation(s) one's ancestors originated from doesn't necessarily indicate whether that individual will observe a certain religion. Not everybody is religious regardless of their heritage. I also was saying that ancestries aren't among the top things that most US Presidents are known for. Regarding categorization, I don't see any benefit of categorizing them by German lineage, Scottish ancestry, Welsh family, French heritage, etc. Such statistics on how many had ancestors from certain places sounds like something better fitted for a genealogy site. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being Irish-Catholic has nothing to do with whether or not JFK was a practicing Catholic: George Lennon was ethnically Irish-Catholic despite practicing Buddhism. The point is that Irish-Catholic is a distinct ethnicity from Anglo-Irish or Ulster Scot, and JFK was the first president of that ethnicity. That JFK was Irish, and specifically Irish-Catholic is very important, as evidenced by significant coverage in many reliable sources. Is it what he's most famous for? No: he's most famous for dying. But it's still important. pburka (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence doesn't make sense when Catholicism is a religion and not an ethnicity. Regardless of what Lennon practiced, I'd call him ethnically Irish. None of the practicing or former Catholics I've ever met would use that characteristic of themselves to describe their heritage, especially when no longer observant of the faith. They instead would go off of where their ancestors came from, regardless of whether that means Ireland or other places. As for JFK, however much discussion his lineage gets, being Catholic doesn't mean his Irish ancestry was separate from other presidents unless one means having full vs partial roots from that nation or perhaps coming from a different geographical location within the territory. In case there was any ambiguity, I'm referring to the Republic of Ireland aka "Southern Ireland" so to speak when I say "Irish" in this case, which is a separate entity from Northern Ireland (which I believe is what "Scotch-Irish" pertains to though could be wrong). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:27, 14 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 10:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Envirostructure[edit]

Envirostructure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A (to me) barely comprehensible article on a neologism created by an SPA, which would be promotion if I could figure out what it was promoting. There is a company in Timmins, Ontario called Envirostructure and a blog called Envirostructure, but none of these are either the subject of the article or notable in their own right. Tagged for notability since 2015. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:20, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furman Stewart Baldwin[edit]

Furman Stewart Baldwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. All biographical information is unsourced and there is no discussion of him in any reliable sources. In fact, a search for him comes up with Amazon/ebay links to buy the kissing photograph mentioned in the article, but no other sources. Entire article is unsourced, likely written by a family member. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there was a failed PROD in 2009 - otherwise this would have been candidate for proposed deletion. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:14, 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. I will salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Charles Zakaria[edit]

Jean Charles Zakaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are several problems with this autobiography. The first is that it is an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged. The second is that it is promotional, which is one of the reasons why autobiographies are discouraged. The third is that it currently has no footnotes. That could be corrected, and it would still be a promotional autobiography. The fourth is that a Google search shows that the subject exists and uses social media and is an effective self-promoter, but that there is no third-party coverage.

This title has already been deleted as G12 copyvio once and draftified once, but has been moved back into article space. It is time to delete it and salt it, so that future re-creations with name gaming can be deleted as G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 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 redirect to List of Source mods. T. Canens (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SourceForts[edit]

SourceForts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability? This is just a random video game mod which the article claims was created by a twelve-year-old from Scotland. Somehow, this article has survived since 2005. This should either be deleted or redirected to List of Source mods. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:00, 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. This discussion is being closed early per WP:SNOW. Mz7 (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hariram Suthakaran[edit]

Hariram Suthakaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this qualifies for a speedy (not promo enough for G11, does assert significance so not A7). However, on examining sourcing on Suthakaran he does not pass GNG or NAUTHOR. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:33, 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 keep. Sandstein 07:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weavers' cottage (Kleinschwarzenbach, Zum Weberhaus 10)[edit]

Weavers' cottage (Kleinschwarzenbach, Zum Weberhaus 10) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally Deleted under WP:G11, consensus at deletion review was to overturn the G11 and list here. This listing is a purely administrative action; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, UK listing at the lowest level (Grade II) is not regarded as making a building notable, but rightly or wrongly the American national and state listing schemes, plus the Dutch Rijksmonument one ( 61,822 of those), have been so treated. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may or it may not, depending on the building. In general it's probably best to group individual houses together instead of having a separate article on every single Grade II-listed building in a street or village, but according to WP:GEOFEAT national heritage listing (at any level) does give a presumption of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As has been mentioned before, the mere existence of an article in another language does not automatically guarantee that an article will not be deleted here; see Wikipedia:Translating German Wikipedia for comparison, the part at the bottom labeled content issues. Lectonar (talk) 10:39, 11 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) 13:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Gateshead F.C. season[edit]

2014–15 Gateshead F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:28, 11 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) 13:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Bristol Rovers F.C. season[edit]

2014–15 Bristol Rovers F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The club was playing in the Conference Premier which was the 5th tier of English club football thereby failing WP:NSEASONS. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:28, 11 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 and redirect to Farpoint Convention. Salvio 10:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ClipperCon[edit]

ClipperCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable convention. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of notability. Deprodded with no additional sources added to improve article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:01, 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 speedy deleted Materialscientist (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Vidambu Nadolo[edit]

Samson Vidambu Nadolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see nothing special, this feels WP:PROMOTIONAL, fails WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:00, 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Egypt[edit]

List of shopping malls in Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG; I don't think it is useful either, and is presumably incomplete. This has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Andrew Davidson, thought has gone into it. I think on the whole lists should be evaluated individually - does this one meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG? I can't see that it does. List articles are really difficult to judge (hence them sitting in CAT:NN for so long) but hopefully this one would give me a clearer idea of the issues and the consensus before I looked at any other lists of shopping malls in x. Something like shopping malls may also be considered important, notable and well-written about in some countries - and not at all in others, so it is worth considering them individually imo. I don't mind anyone putting forward a different case though, that's one of the good things about AfD. Boleyn (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:Andrew Davidson, you're being very aggressive today. I assume Ajf was starting with the article in front of them, rather than being biased. I'm pretty sure they don't want to 'trash the entire continent of Africa'. Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being defensive; protecting our content from disruption. The nominator does not appear to have engaged with the topic or said one word about the situation in Egypt. Per WP:BEFORE, "if the main concern is notability the minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search". Has the nominator made these searches? Why have they not found sources like Changing Consumer Cultures of Modern Egypt or Emerging Egypt which indicate that the topic passes WP:LISTN. The nominator needs to explain why they are being so aggressive towards a good faith topic without doing due diligence. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your intention may be to come across as defensive, and that is needed on Wikipedia - I always appreciate people putting forward different opinions - preferably without attacking others - and it is always helpful to have people put forward a keep argument. I tend to trust in the consensus the AfD comes to and don't mind if it differs from my assessment. Of course there are books which mention that shopping malls exist in Egypt, and that it is a very recent development. I'm not getting the same results as you from the first link you posted - it's not showing fully for me except about malls in Dubai - but the second one confirms existence of 26 (at the time of writing) shopping malls in Greater Cairo. Does that mean it meets WP:LISTN, or do the other sources which confirm there are malls in Egypt? I don't agree, but I respect your opinion and appreciate you looking at the article and adding your own opinion here. Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book Changing Consumer Cultures of Modern Egypt is a substantial academic work and you don't get to read it for free. Its title and description indicate that it is mainly about Egypt and Cairo in particular. References to other places such as Dubai are for purposes of comparison. The work covers shopping malls and elsewhere we read that "Chapter Six provides an extended look at one key institution of consumer culture, the shopping mall. Abaza explores in particular the role of the shopping mall in reshaping urban space. When “traditional” quarters of the city are redefined as slums, this categorization allows them to be “cleared” to make way for gigantic, ultramodern mega-malls. Malls are ranked by the classes of customers they cater to, and mechanisms are sometimes in place to ensure the wrong people do not enter the “best” malls." So, from this evidence, it is apparent that the topic passes WP:LISTN. How did I find this? By taking the trouble to look. But doing this is the responsibilty of the nominator and so failure to do so is negligent and disruptive. I gather that Boleyn is trying to work through a backlog of over 60,000 articles which have been tagged by other editors who couldn't be bothered to look for sources either. If they continue to nominate so many articles for deletion without doing due diligence then it won't go well.
If feelings are hurt then this is an undesirable consequence of this process. Please consider the feelings of the editor who started this page. He decribes himself on his user page, "Hi, my name is Ahmed(born February 15, 1983). I live in Cairo, Egypt. A graduate of Ain Shams University, with a major in Computer Engineering. I read about almost everything, politics, history, military, computers and sports. I travelled to other countries as well. However, I am mainly interested in contributing in Egyptian related topics. I'm still new to Wikipedia, and I hope to be a good contributor to this ambitious project." This person seems to be a good faith editor but his work is being attacked. See WP:BITE which explains that "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". WP:IMPERFECT explains that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." These are our policies.
Andrew🐉(talk) 23:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zambia apparently had no qualifying articles (no category exists either). I do think merging of these lists is probably the best outcome here. postdlf (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator still hasn't explained why we should pick on this particular country. Ravenswing hails from Massachusetts, right? Consider List of shopping malls in Massachusetts. Notice that that has no sources. Notice that none of the equivalent lists for the other US states have no sources either. So why are we making a special example of Egypt when we seem to have similar lists for every other part of the world. Per nom doesn't cut it when the nomination is so flawed. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of shopping malls in Massachusetts redirects to List of shopping malls in the United States, and even then all the links in the list are bluelinked, so no issues with that. The point of these lists is for navigation, not to be used as a directory of every single mall known. Ajf773 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you probably should have looked at the List of shopping malls in Massachusetts article first. Oops. That being said, you haven't advanced a reason why lists pertaining to Egypt should be exempt from scrutiny. Ravenswing 02:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravenswing, I guarantee that if delete voters were making veiled insinuations that the other side were motivated by racism, they'd be facing a pitchfork mob at ANI. It just goes to show that you can say and do what you like provided you preface everything with the word "keep". Reyk YO! 14:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment see wp:whatabout and wp:otherstuffexists. We are assessing this article, there are of course hundreds of thousands are other poor ones, or ones of doubtful notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OSE supports my position, not Boleyn's because it states that "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid ... these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." There doesn't seem to be any significant structural difference between these many lists of shopping malls and so it makes no sense to treat them differently. The nomination here is arbitrary and inconsistent because it is not based upon consideration of the general topic; it's just a drive-by attempt to deal with a clean-up tag, right? Trying to clean up topics in such a random, date-based way is not efficient because you get no consistency or economies of scale. The correct way to address such topics is as a group and then it can be done consistently by adopting a common approach. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... whereupon you'd just argue that a bundled nomination didn't give people the chance to evaluate the articles on their own merits. Sorry, no reason to play that game, when your AfD votes run almost 50:1 for Keep/Merge over Delete. Ravenswing 02:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point about countries vs. continents, but I also think numbers play a role here, in that there are probably more shopping malls in the USA than in the entire Africa put together; kind of like how there could be one list for Canadian inductees to the Hockey Hall of Fame, and another, much smaller one, for the ROW. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 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 redirect to List of NGC objects. Salvio 10:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 529[edit]

NGC 529 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd like to renominate this article for deletion. That might be a taboo thing to do normally, but in this case NASTRO has changed (in response to the original AfD in fact) to specifically exclude NGC objects as being of "historical importance." On the merits of GNG alone, this fails to be considered notable. The first result on google scholar is a mistranscription (it's actually NGC 5291), and everything else is a trivial reference. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 529 has 90 references on simbad http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id-refs?Ident=%401546576&Name=NGC%20%20%20529 and is part of the NGC 383 and NGC 507 groups which are part of the Perseus-Pisces Supercluster. Sources:http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-ref?bibcode=1994AJ....108...33S, http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-ref?bibcode=1993A%26AS..100...47G, http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-ref?bibcode=1993AJ....105.1251W173.44.244.196 (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK tc 16:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:25, 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. Salvio 10:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego County Philatelic Library[edit]

San Diego County Philatelic Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable local organisation, WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:18, 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. Salvio 10:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Nicaraguan School[edit]

American Nicaraguan School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None notable private school. It seems to have been badly referenced to only two primary sources since at least 2015 and was written like an advert by a COI editor. Also, I wasn't able to find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:00, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Bosshard (photojournalist)[edit]

Walter Bosshard (photojournalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't even really assert notability, though its German WP version, the authority control and Google are more helpful. From them I am not seeing enough to meet WP:JOURNALIST 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) 07:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK tc 16:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think being the subject of a book or conference is enough to pass either GNG or WP:NARTIST. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:27, 13 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 10:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming Jiff[edit]

Becoming Jiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable web series with no evidence of satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. GSS💬 17:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS💬 17:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, this is a Web TV series produced by Dean Silvers that's almost three years old. The creator even acknowledged it was on the ballot for the 2019 Emmy Awards. It was distributed by Samuel Goldwyn Films and had an exclusive deal with Prime Video. How is that notable? No one had an issue with this for almost three years, but then when someone posted an article about the creator then they questioned this article. Answer honestly, do you think this page would ever have been nominated for deletion if someone didn't submit a wiki page for the creator?

Watch it, see the opening and closing credits: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07HYKKTRW

Look at the post on the talk page: I disagree with the proposed deletion, the editor did not read the proper “notability” guidelines when proposing deletion. This article is NOT about “Film Notability” which he or she uses as an example, this is a Web Televisions series NOT A FILM. If he or she had read the article this would appear obvious -- therefore his reasoning for deletion does not apply to this article.

In general the notability page clearly states: “Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity…” But the television show was produced by famous Sundance Winning producer Dean Silvers. It was distributed the famous studio Samuel Goldwyn Films (known for films such as: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013 film) and The Squid and the Whale) and released on one of the most famous web platforms Prime Video. Based off the “Notability” page it seems as though the editor thinks this is an article about an independent film that played at a film festival that isn’t on imdb. None of which is true. The Notability page he sources also says “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” Below are articles on the film and lead actor. A TV review from BuzzFeed, a major new publication and a review by a Rottentomatoes.com certified film critic. https://www.clichemag.com/celebrity-news/becoming-jiffs-tyler-silvers-on-comedy-family-and-navigating-mistaken-identity/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/jenniferabidor/heres-a-bunch-of-things-you-can-watch-on-amazon-prime-video https://thefilmstage.com/new-to-streaming-let-the-sunshine-in-private-life-phantom-thread-and-more/ http://www.samuelgoldwynfilms.com/becoming-jiff/ https://www.screendaily.com/news/samuel-goldwyn-films-snaps-up-short-form-comedy-series-becoming-jiff-from-silvers-brothers/5132771.article Reddit AMA on the film: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/9p1gu0/were_the_silvers_brothers_the_creators_of_the/ Official Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=415speAw_1I&feature=emb_title Prime Video: https://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Jiff/dp/B07HYHNVC9 Apple TV: https://tv.apple.com/us/show/becoming-jiff/umc.cmc.6t7xnn4ew24erqaql0tpqggkx https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8595186/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsilvers (talkcontribs) 18:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-12 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ 03:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 09:58, 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 redirect to List of Zoey 101 episodes. Salvio 10:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey 101: Spring Break-Up[edit]

Zoey 101: Spring Break-Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like the articles on three other TV movies from the 2000s children’s series Zoey 101. I think these should be redirected to their summaries of the list of episodes for this series to go by this Wikipedia talk from 2017. Pahiy (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 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 redirect to List of Zoey 101 episodes. Salvio 10:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey 101: The Curse of PCA[edit]

Zoey 101: The Curse of PCA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like the articles on three other TV movies from the 2000s children’s series Zoey 101. I think these should be redirected to their summaries of the list of episodes for this series to go by this Wikipedia talk from 2017. Pahiy (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 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 redirect to List of Zoey 101 episodes. Salvio 10:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey 101: Chasing Zoey[edit]

Zoey 101: Chasing Zoey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like the articles on three other TV movies from the 2000s children’s series Zoey 101. I think these should be redirected to their summaries of the list of episodes for this series to go by this Wikipedia talk from 2017. Pahiy (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 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 redirect to List of Zoey 101 episodes. Salvio 10:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey 101: Goodbye Zoey?[edit]

Zoey 101: Goodbye Zoey? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I was looking at the article for the iCarly series finale, I ended up taking a deep dive and saw this article about this episode of Zoey 101 that premiered two weeks after the news about Jamie Lynn Spears’ teen pregnancy broke. It may have gotten attention with the ratings, but there does not appear to be anything else that would source this apart from fan wikis on Fandom. I’m thinking, should this article were to avoid deletion, a redirect to the episode's summary in the list of Zoey 101 episodes to go by this Wikipedia talk from 2017. Pahiy (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 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. Salvio 10:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun s Bisht[edit]

Tarun s Bisht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BEFORE search brought up no in-depth coverage of the filmmaker. The sources provided in the article are all IMDB style profiles which lack reliable significant coverage . The subject may not pas WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bingobro (Chat) 09:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 09:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 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. Salvio 10:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jnanadeepa: Pune Journal of Religious Studies[edit]

Jnanadeepa: Pune Journal of Religious Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by SPA, after several external links were added. None of those links contributes to notability under either NJournals or GNG. PROD reason stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check this link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3950746 Down (towards the end) you will find attached a xls file containing the list of articles. The DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3950746 You may also check also: https://zenodo.org/record/3950746#.XzLMC6_iu01 Best wishes -Sabin Abraham I have contacted the office of the journal. They are willing to send a ecopy of the latest issue if you write to them: journal@jdv.edu.in The topic is "Humanaising Social Life" 11 articles.No of pages 208. In the advisorial board of the journal 8 Vice-Chancellors[1] from different Indian universities and at least six foreign scholars! Best wishes -Sabin

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabinabraham (talkcontribs) 16:46, 11 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. Editors are allowed to argue against existing guidelines when it is clear to them applying the guidelines goes against WP:COMMONSENSE. However, AfD is not the place to argue the guidelines themselves, and a very compelling argument must be made that a guideline should be bypassed. (That goes for both keep and delete !votes, by the way). However, consensus is that this topic does not meet NFOOTY, (or GNG) and therefore does not warrant encyclopedic attention. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robbert Barendse[edit]

Robbert Barendse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:BASIC   // Timothy :: talk  05:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He meets WP:NFOOTBALL by making three appearances for a senior national team (bonaire) in the concacaf nations league, which is a regional confederation. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Wikipedia should be a repository of non-notable stubs because they are presumed to be notable. Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary. It's an encyclopedia and these stubs provide no WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT.
I think how notability should be applied in these cases is a good conversation to have. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe I'm correct.
To address issues:
  • WP:BEFORE has been done. It has turned up no WP:RS to establish notability. I don't see anyone that has added a RS to indicate my BEFORE was faulty (perhaps they did and I haven't seen it since I last looked). See below regarding NFOOTBALL and as I stated above I should not have been using NFOOTBALL and NSPORT interchangeably.
  • The core question here is if a person meets WP:NFOOTBALL, does that mean there notability is automatically established and cannot be questioned based on the lack of RS? or I am interpreting WP:N, WP:SNG, and WP:NSPORT and presumption correctly and it's valid to bring up the question of notability here.
  • WP:N states "A topic is presumed to merit an article..." Presumed is defined in the link as "a rebuttable presumption ... is an assumption made by a court that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise". I am coming forward to contest the notability of these articles based on a lack of WP:RS showing notability.
  • From WP:N (WP:NRV) (a guideline that applies to all subjects) "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". The evidence (WP:RS) must show the individual is notable. I don't believe that evidence exists and the presumption, in this case, is incorrect.
  • Just because WP:NFOOTBALL says someone can be "presumed notable" does not guarantee they are notable, nor does it say that editors cannot question this presumption of notability. A presumption is an assumption that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it. WP:NFOOTBALL is not a trump card that automatically overrules all other guidelines and makes article notability immune from scrutiny.
  • From WP:SNG "a presumption is neither a guarantee that sources can be found" and therefore it is not a guarantee the topic is notable, "nor a mandate for a separate page." A separate page is not mandatory for a topic just because of a presumption.
"If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria". "it is likely" does not mean there always are sufficient sources. It is also possible that sufficient sources do not exist to establish notability. Therefore if someone comes forward to question the presumption of notability, it can be discussed and the article deleted if the presumption is found to be wrong due to the lack of WP:RS establishing notability.
  • Per WP:NSPORT "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." Even if an article meets WP:NFOOTBALL that does not mean it must be kept. If there are reasons, such as a lack of RS, then an article can be deleted.
  • I was thinking about writing an RFC to ask about clarifying that a presumption of notability can be questioned based on the lack of RS showing notability so that this is no longer a matter for debate. If the RFC is written (I'm not sure I want to be pummeled by the football team), this might be a good opening comment. I was also thinking about writing an RFC to ask about revising the exceedingly low standard set in WP:NFOOTBALL since I believe its standard is allowing too many non-notable articles to exist. Together these two RFCs might be a good starting point for removing a good number of non-notable articles.   // Timothy :: talk  12:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:46, 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. Salvio 10:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lev[edit]

Martin Lev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His two film credits (and a TV episode) aren't going to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Point, New Westminster[edit]

The Point, New Westminster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unremarkable condo in Metro Vancouver that does not seem to meet WP:NBUILD. I found a few articles in The Vancouver Sun that mention it, but all seemed to be routine real estate coverage. Notability tagged since 2012. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:31, 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 redirect to Cattle Decapitation#Discography. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

¡Decapitacion![edit]

¡Decapitacion! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable EP that is a whopping two and a half minutes long. All three songs were originally from a different album, which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homovore. All three tracks are in Spanish. Due to the somewhat generic name, it's hard to find sources for this. I can't see a way in which this could possibly pass WP:NALBUM, all the relevant sources I've seen are junk. Taking this here, in case other editors can find decent non-English sources. Hog Farm Bacon 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:38, 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 redirect to Cattle Decapitation. North America1000 07:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Torments of the Damned[edit]

Ten Torments of the Damned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album. [10] is just a track listing/release information, if it's even reliable. The lone source in the article is primary. Metal-archives and discogs are user-generated. It's possible there's print sources in existence, since this was released in the 1990s before the internet really took over, but since this is a self-released demo that's only 8 minutes long, that highly unlikely. I would boldly redirect this myself, but grindcore isn't a genre I'm familiar with, so others may have more expertise in this area. Hog Farm Bacon 02:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:16, 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. Salvio 10:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University18 Business School[edit]

University18 Business School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
University18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nearly identical promotional articles that don't meet WP:GNG. Provided sources are trivial mentions, not independent, don't mention the subject at all, or dead links. Nothing better came up when searching online. signed, Rosguill talk 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 02:08, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SL93 (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Hermits Friars of the Order of St. Augustine and His Real Institution Before the Great Lateran Council[edit]

Origin of the Hermits Friars of the Order of St. Augustine and His Real Institution Before the Great Lateran Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this book. It is from 1618, but being old doesn't make it automatically notable. The author doesn't have an article. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a very rare old book published only in Spanish (I wish I had a copy in my library) this book has not been translated into English. IMHO it is a notable book + should have a Spanish wikipage, it's author has both Spanish + English wikipages. --Devokewater@ 13:20, 12 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) 12:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of insurance companies in Singapore[edit]

List of insurance companies in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. The premise of this list is that it replicates the list of insurance companies provided by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), but its entries are not consistent with the MAS webpage so the contents of this page are questionable. Furthermore, most of these entries are not at all notable, resulting a huge number of redlinks. Since the MAS is already maintaining a list and this article largely depends on keeping up-to-date with that one source (which isn't right now), an interested reader would be better off looking at the MAS webpage than here. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:52, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks v Parramatta Eels Round 13, 2020[edit]

Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks v Parramatta Eels Round 13, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable sporting match. Coverage says that it was raining heavily, but it was still a run-of-the-mill match. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:18, 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. Salvio 10:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Bikini Model International[edit]

World Bikini Model International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unremarkable pageant. Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:11, 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.
  1. ^ "Jnanadeepa: Pune Journal of Religious Studies - Officials". sites.google.com. Retrieved 2020-08-12.