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

The result was delete. Tone 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the Beast (1992 film)[edit]

Beauty and the Beast (1992 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)

No independent reliable sources found during search to establish notability for this direct to video film. Tagged for notability for 7 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I searched Google, JSTOR and ProQuest for sources but found passing references of allegations of copying Disney. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFO. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Same as above, I found references of copying disney. In addition, I found a handful of blogs (not reliable per WP:UGC) discussing the film. The only independent, reliable source I found just listed the publication date, the studio, the publisher, and the director. That is not significant coverage. The film fails the WP:GNG and I don't see how it passes WP:NFO. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 22:41, 25 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 delete by an Admin per WP: G7. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signs of the Swarm[edit]

Signs of the Swarm (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)

A7: Non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and (mostly) fails WP:BAND. I know this group very well, and they're just a trendy deathcore band. I know their music videos have a few million views on YouTube (but that's mostly attributed to the over-hyped marketing machine of a vocalist that is no longer in the band). There's only ONE source that is used on the whole page, Googling their name indicates no such notability that passes WP:GNG. They've also never charted and definitely are not one of the more noteworthy acts of the deathcore genre. Second Skin (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know this band as well, I find them freaking awful and annoying (but that's because I cannot stand deathcore (or metalcore for that matter). But that's not the point here. (Punknews.org Album Review) This is the only good source imo (PunkNews is a reliable source). Even though I have found other sites that reviewed this album, they are blogs. The Metal.de page is blank, it only lists their tour dates which does not establish any notability either. But no album review or anything. The rest of the results are the usual suspects like Metal Archives, Discogs, Rate Your Music, Spotify, Youtube and all this crap. There are also several news about their new vocalist (including the one in the article) but I don't count them as reliable sources because they have PR and gossipy feel. So in retrospect, this band has gotten some coverage, but that's because the marketing machine worked. There is nothing special about this band, they are just like every other deathcore band. Some of them are notable, some of them aren't, like this one. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Their metal archives page was made by me lmao Second Skin (talk) 00:48, 21 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Hoffman (artist)[edit]

Judy Hoffman (artist) (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 written like a promotional piece and is sourced almost entirely to WP:PRIMARY sources written by the subject herself. A cursory Google search didn't turn up any substantial secondary coverage, so I'm not sure the subject meets WP:GNG, either. Additionally, the article text is entirely copy-pasted from here—or vice versa. I'm hesitant to say it's a blatant copyvio since this other source may have copied from us. I also notice that the article's creator, User:Artintegrated, appears to be a promotional entity based on the user page, so there may also be COI issues at play. Armadillopteryx 23:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I could not find much for independent sourcing. The Brooklyn Museum 'collection' is actually their library collection, and not the art collection. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article reads promotional to me. I have not found significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 11:13, 24 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. Tone 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khowai Government Girls' Class XII School[edit]

Khowai Government Girls' Class XII 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)

Fails WP:GNG. Non notable school. Unable to find any significant coverage other than some listing site. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Does someone know if this school is related to Khowai Government Higher Secondary School? Ktin (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - schools are not inherently notable and this one clearly fails GNG Spiderone 13:57, 26 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. Tone 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Marga High School (English Medium), Teliamura[edit]

Ananda Marga High School (English Medium), Teliamura (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. Non notable school. Unable to find any significant coverage other than some listing site. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 17:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:09, 21 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonatala Govt. Class XII School[edit]

Sonatala Govt. Class XII 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)

Fails WP:GNG. Non notable school. Unable to find any significant coverage other than some listing site. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Has some history going for it by way of incorporation in 1946. However, nothing else shows up about this school. Unfortunately, this might have to go. Ktin (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete can't find any sources, which isn't surprising - from my experience high schools in India are seldom notable. SD0001 (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 17:33, 21 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. Tone 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Fantasy and Science Fiction Wargamers[edit]

Society of Fantasy and Science Fiction Wargamers (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 society. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, substantial, secondary sourcing Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hardly anything about it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems to fail WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 26 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. Creative collaborations are a tricky subject with respect to WP:NORG, which could theoretically be interpreted as covering any kind of ensemble. However, there is substantial consensus in this discussion that this article, as improved over the course of the discussion, now meets that threshold as well. BD2412 T 00:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United Graffiti Artists[edit]

United Graffiti Artists (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)

It is a collective/group, thus subject to WP:NORG. This article has been A7'd twice, and recreated again this year. There's still no indication that it meets the stringent expectations that this collective be retained. Even if the members are notable, the organization does not inherit notability and the sources presented fails WP:SIRS. Going out guide in NYT doesn't constitute significant, nor does a casual mention in the local Downtown Los Angeles paper like the following carry a significant weight. "Gastman brought together a wide array of artists for the current show. That includes graffiti pioneers Taki 183 and SJK 171, who were members of the landmark group the United Graffiti Artists, which was active decades ago." Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep because I believe interpreting NCORP to apply to an artist collective to supersede GNG is an incorrect interpretation. And anyways, the peer reviewed sources I just added would satisfy NCORP -- in particular the chapter on the group in the peer reviewed MIT book. But also the other peer reviewed texts that repeatedly state that UGA was the first graffiti group and the first to promote grafitti as a high art (e.g. for gallery/market display) Theredproject (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. @Theredproject:, Did you read what NORG says? "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together" Graywalls (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Graywalls, and if you read on, it says “This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people).” A collaborative art group are co-authors. Theredproject (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • (question was raised at WT:N about this). There's no indication this group are "co-authors" or "co-artists". They are a group working towards common activism to promote graffiti, so they clearly fall as an organization and NORG applies. --Masem (t) 17:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per above. Also found a New Yorker article, which mentions their contributions to a Twyla Tharp production. Caro7200 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment did you feel it was significant and in-depth? It was more than a brief mention in a passing, but less than significant and in-depth as required by WP:SIRS. Graywalls (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did. Caro7200 (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please have another look. An editor incorrectly editorialized and said the US Forest Services credited them. Have you seen the sources? They don't exactly satisfy significant, independent, reliable and secondary coverage in multiple sources. Satisfying all these is a requirement for article inclusion. There just isn't enough significant coverage focusing on UGA. I'll include an example of co-incidental coverage I learned while participating in a different AfD. Co-incidental coverage that happens due to something other than the subject of the article should not really be counted with any significance, for example, the appearance of Kitten Rescue here https://sports.yahoo.com/colton-haynes-adopts-cat-names-160954900.html would be considered completely trivial and the coverage occurred only because of Colton Haynes. Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also convinced by [1] (at least 2 pages of in-depth coverage) and [2] (detailed paragraph). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t know the topic well enough to !vote on notability, but NORG definitely applies. To establish notability we need sources that discuss (in reasonable depth) this collective/group AS A WHOLE, and not just the individuals who made up the collective/group. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 21 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Francis Alexander[edit]

Stewart Francis Alexander (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)

One event. already mentioned in the article Air raid on Bari DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The continuing coverage of Alexander's work that proceeded for months after the bombing have been the subjects of major articles in reliable and verifiable sources, as already documented in the article. In no way, shape or form is he notable for the Air raid on Bari; he wasn't even there at the time. The book The Great Secret: The Classified World War II Disaster that Launched the War on Cancer, by Jennet Conant, which is the basis of the lengthy article about him in Smithsonian, is described as "The gripping story of a chemical weapons catastrophe, the cover-up and how one American Army doctor’s discovery led to the development of the first drug to combat cancer, known today as chemotherapy." That doctor, the subject of the book, is Stewart Francis Alexander. Alansohn (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if so, why does the article talk about him ony in the context of treating thesurvoivors of that raid? I think you need to write a different article than the present one. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, per WP:BLP1E, Alexander merits a separate standalone article because the single event he was associated with, the Air raid on Bari, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented in reliable and verifiable sources, including a book that focuses on his pivotal and enduring role. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There appear to be numerous sources online including books, so easily passing WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep--Vinayaraj (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe the person satisfies the notability criterion for academics. History of cancer chemotherapy talks about his theory that mustard gas could be used to suppress cancer cell division, and how that played a role in the further development of chemotherapy. As such, it satisfies The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline. -- Raziman T V (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has coverage in RS. Satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (academics): The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable source Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I AM ALS[edit]

I AM ALS (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)

Organization itself has insufficient coverage & hasn’t been discussed with in-depth. A before search only links me to primary sources, press releases & self published sources. The founder appears to be somewhat notable but per WP:NOTINHERITED this doesn’t count for much. Celestina007 21:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 21:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 21:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 21:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 21:28, 19 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 11:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AirDee[edit]

AirDee (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:GNG, coverage is largely limited to Q&A interviews and press releases. The two best sources currently available for building a case for notability are [3] and [4], which don't add up to GNG. I wasn't able to find additional coverage online. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This one is a close call because he has done a lot of things that have earned brief media mentions, but I agree with the nominator on how it doesn't quite add up to notability. He has gotten some reliable but brief mentions in stories on songs that he produced for others (such as the Locnville et al. track), and he has a lot of appearances in lists of his scene's producers. Unfortunately those sources are almost always indirect or trivial, and he remains a few steps away from notability in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the coverage is not such to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Article covers a non-performing personnel subject and can be better improved to meet GNG criteria. Producers have limited coverage by default due to their background nature. The subject however has a presence and as a producer warrants some notability especially in the South African Music scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pen Bull (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing about notability is that at the end of the day, we need independent coverage the write an article. It may be unfair that producers don't get enough credit for their work, but there really isn't much that we can do in the absence of coverage. If you can find significant independent coverage in secondary sources then you can make a case for notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: GNG fail, as well as fails WP:CREATIVE. The only valid response to "Producers have limited coverage by default due to their background nature" is "That is why producers generally do not qualify for Wikipedia articles." Ravenswing 03:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  good day

  please revisit this deletion i think AirDee now qualifies as He is now an artist.

  link : https://www.musicinafrica.net/magazine/top-sa-hip-hop-songs-2022 41.114.56.212 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Port of Beirut grain silo[edit]

Port of Beirut grain silo (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 am sincerely on the fence with this one. On one hand, this silo held a lot of grain for Lebanon and it played a big part in the 2020 Beirut explosion. But on the other hand, it really didn't rise to any semblance of prominence until the explosion. Right now, the only close claim of notability is that it once held a strategic grain reserve for Lebanon. Other than that, the subsequent events can be noted in the appropriate articles about the explosion (2020 Beirut explosion, Port of Beirut, etc). Right now, it appears that WP:NBUILDING isn't met, so this building would have to rely on WP:GNG alone. And right now, it appears to fail GNG, specifically the significant coverage point: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention... At this point, all of the sources (except maybe one) appear to focus on the blast or its impacts to Lebanon's food reserves, while only mentioning that the silo existed, was destroyed, or took the brunt of the impact. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge details into Port of Beirut It was a workaday silo for most of its existence, but the found info about its creation and overall national strategic importance should go into the main port article. Nate • (chatter) 22:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Port of Beirut, I don't see anything that's worth noting to warrant it having its own page. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete − Wholly ordinary, non-notable industrial facility that gained some exposure following the blast. Any relevant fact about it can be covered in the mentioned articles (2020 Beirut explosion, Port of Beirut). It is doubtful how likely Port of Beirut grain silo would be used even as a search term, so there's no point in keeping it as redirect. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Eeeesh, yes, I'm sure it was a fine grain silo and held grain and everything, and the article utterly fails the GNG and all other notability criteria, seeing as we don't have WP:NSILO in place. I agree with [[User:Deeday-UK|Deeday-UK] that it's not a likely search term, given that searches for "Beirut explosion" or suchlike probably outnumber "Beirut silo" by about ∞:1. Ravenswing 03:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jewell[edit]

Mark Jewell (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 notable Yannick (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article has plenty of sources however none of them ticks all 3 boxes - independent, reliable, significant coverage. Many are dead links, others - connected to the subject. WP:BEFORE hasn't added much to that. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO,WP:AUTHOR.Less Unless (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable, PR, fails WP:GNG, quite a few SPA's have been involved in editing this wikipage --Devokewater (talk) 11:11, 24 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 11:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Investing.com[edit]

Investing.com (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:CORP and WP:GNG as lacking significant coverage in independent, third party sources. The references cited are either from the article subject or are limited interest, trade publications. The general thrust of the article is primarily promotional as contravened by WP:PROMO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a very popular + respected website. --Devokewater @ 15:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with User: Devokewater. SimilarWeb says the website is the 244th most popular website in the world. [5]] Alexa says the website is the 186th most popular website in the world.[6]. Wikipedia does have the Wikipedia ignore all rules rule so that reasonableness can prevail over Wikipedia's independent, third party sources rule. Due to competition from the internet, many newspapers and colleges are closing so Wikipedia should not be overly reliant on journalists/academics. In addition, the website does have articles by Techcrunch, Venturebeat and Business Insider on it.Knox490 (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. Apple731a (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Struck !vote from blocked disruption-only account editing here to WP:GAME autoconfirmed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "popular + respected" does not mean notability in the wp sense. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• It does seem likely that it's notable, but I haven't seen the sourcing yet (it's hard to filter through the many google hits). A challenge is that it's a very basic domain name, which is why some of the better sources aren't actually about the company or site but about the domain name itself (and the high price attached to it). The best I've found that wasn't just "they opened a new office" or "there's a canadian version now" is probably this Pando article, but it would be reassuring to see more like that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I see no evidence that this meets either the GNG or pertinent notability criteria for websites. The keep proponents haven't advanced a reason to avoid deletion beyond WP:ITSIMPORTANT. It is not enough to claim that a website is noteworthy; one must have genuine evidence that it is. Ravenswing 03:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- This does not appear to meet the GNG. It's a bit promotional and has been made to look properly sourced, but a closer inspection shows it's much worse than it looks. Reyk _YO! 09:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feezy[edit]

Feezy (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 article on a musician who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. All awards won by subject of article are all very non notable awards issued by non notable award shows. A WP:BEFORE search shows he lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 20:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As I write this, in just the past few minutes this article has been speedy deleted per WP:R2 then recreated and redirected and some other shenanigans, due to disagreements with moving it over from draftspace. This article should be kept out of mainspace, and any rejections it has received back in draftspace should be made permanent. As for Feezy himself, the article claims that he won three awards, but I can find no reliable coverage of those awards in themselves, indicating that they are probably online-only vanity scams. Of the sources currently in the article, three of them in three different publications repeat the exact same story ("I'm working to place Arewa on music map"), indicating that those are unreliable promotional publications that reprint self-created press releases. Otherwise Feezy is only found in the usual social media and streaming services. The article is clearly an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doomsdayer. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage in IRS. Not notable. Less Unless (talk) 14:13, 20 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. Closed under WP:SKCRIT #2: "The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and... no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion." Clear revenge nomination after accusing article creator of being on a "reckless deletion spree" for nominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahdat (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Alhawary[edit]

Maya Alhawary (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 the BLP cites some RS but they merely namecheck or quote the subject. I couldn't find the solid coverage which discuss the subject in detail.It fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 19 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. Tone 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. V. Satish[edit]

K. V. Satish (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 person; Lacks significant coverage, They acted only in one film, so doesn't qualify WP:NACTOR either. Ab207 (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an overly promotional article full of buzzwords. There is no substance just promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - Definitely fails WP:NACTOR, and the article would need massive, massive clean up. The subject is covered in Forbes, which is a point in the keep favor. I'm not seeing a lot outside of that coverage-wise. EverybodyEdits (talk) 16:16, 23 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 characters in The Railway Series. Tone 00:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thomas & Friends railway engines[edit]

List of Thomas & Friends railway engines (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:LISTN, WP:IINFO because the list has no evidence of independent notability and offers nothing more than being an unnecessary in-universe list. It has been tagged as a concern for over a decade and does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Pure WP:FANCRUFT Spiderone 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh dear. In looking at this, I started following links to the extant articles about individual engines, as well as the other "narrow gauge" list and its characters. So far every article that I've clicked on has been either unsourced or primary sourced. Seems like a set of pages perhaps best taken to ttte.fandom.com? I don't have a great sense of the notability of any of this stuff, and a search for sources is made difficult by low quality results... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft at its best. It has a better place on Fandom Wiki. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of characters in The Railway Series, in this universe, aren't engines=characters anyway? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Fancruft. Fails WP:LISTN. Can't be referenced because it's WP:OR   // Timothy :: talk  03:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Light merge to List of characters in The Railway Series or List of Thomas & Friends characters (which should be merged with each other). The parent list is notable, but has been split into this separate articles that fail WP:LISTN; if we delete this without including the characters in the parent it would be incomplete. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 14:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just no. This is trivial and not encyclopedia worthy. Does not pass our SNG or GNG Lightburst (talk) 17:25, 24 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 Working with Lemons#Members. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Bagley[edit]

Mia Bagley (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:NBIO & WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT to Working with Lemons#Members which has pretty much the same information. There is not enough significant coverage of Mia Bagley outside of her family musical group to support a standalone article.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT to Working with Lemons#Members. I agree with the above comment. Qualifying references are in context to the family article. No evidence of stand alone notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above, it's all there, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 22 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. Tone 00:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smita Rajgopal[edit]

Smita Rajgopal (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)

Unable to find reliable, in-depth sources on this "graphic design professional". The creator of the article has openly declared a conflict of interest related to the subject's company on their user page. Subject in question fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, due to lack of independent and significant coverage. MaysinFourty (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable graphic designer. Plus Wikipedia is not supposed to be used in such promotional ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero evidence of any notability; graphic designers would need to do something quite remarkable to pass GNG and this clearly hasn't happened Spiderone 13:57, 26 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 11:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rubric Records[edit]

Rubric Records (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 completely unsourced article has existed for 14 years. A search for sources came up with nothing substantial. There is no reason to have articles in Wikipedia that lack all sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient sourcing out there to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:CORP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 19 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 Deanne Pandey. The author's notability is a topic for another discussion Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Not Stressed[edit]

I'm Not Stressed (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 book article is basically an advertisement for a "Bollwood fitness expert". No in-depth or reliable sources exist that attest to its notability. Fails every single criterion under WP:NBOOK. MaysinFourty (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom -- no sources that suggest notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to author's page. pburka (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As looking at WorldCat here, shows it is held by a couple of libraries so redirect to author's page. GSS ^💬 11:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to have been reviewed anywhere. I'm not convinced that a redirect to the author's page would be useful, as it seems likely that the author isn't notable either. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:54, 22 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. Tone 10:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz[edit]

Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz (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 exists solely because he was the father of the wife of the Belgian monarch, which is against WP:INVALIDBIO. The subject has received no significant coverage that would satisfy WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Virtually nothing aside from him having existed and died has been reported by reliable sources. The entire article content is plainly described as "Genealogy", yet Wikipedia is not meant to be a genealogy database; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to either d'Udekem or Queen Mathilde of Belgium#Early life and family. TJMSmith (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no indication of notability.Smeat75 (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge as suggested. There's news coverage only because his daughter is queen and his grandchildren are royalty by birth. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This article is a genealogical record and Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything about the subject directly and indepth. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."   // Timothy :: talk  01:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The entry is almost noting but genealogy. Mangoe (talk) 02:18, 20 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St John's Lutheran School, Jindera[edit]

St John's Lutheran School, Jindera (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 about a Pre+K-6 school which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and not independent sources covering the topic directly and in detail.   // Timothy :: talk  17:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  17:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  17:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I moved what useable material (only two independent sources) there is into the Jindera page (where a mention of the school is more appropriate), but because only one other page links to this article there is no point merging or redirecting. Deus et lex (talk) 08:51, 25 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 12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahua (film)[edit]

Mahua (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)

The first AFD discussion (March 2015) is not relevant here. That discussion was speedily closed, because the article went as part of a mass deletion of pages added by a WP:SOCK.

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in November 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a press release, and that was all. (It's helpful to refine a search by including either "film" or "1969", because there's also Mahua (plant) and Mahua (liquor) to get in the way.) Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG - delete. Narky Blert (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 21:24, 20 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. Initial claims of GNG have not been supported by other editors. I think there is generally a consensus that this person is not notable Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravil Tagir[edit]

Ravil Tagir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article fails WP:Footy and WP:FPL. It's rather under WP:TOOSOON. PROD was contested based on WP:GHITS. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly reaches GNG with all the sources in the article. --Coco (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources are either player profiles or transfer news, both of which are generally considered WP:ROUTINE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one player profile, and barely any pure transfer news: Sabah clearly covers extensively the subject of the player as a whole; the fact that the national press agency portrays the player (although not as extensively) is also a clear sign of notability imho. Takvim also refers to the young player as the "League's most valuable player".

And although goal or teamtalk address some potential transfers, they also produce a significant coverage of the player. --Coco (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this article is even better sourced that the last time it was prodded - not to mention the first time it was prodded. I'm seeing a huge amount of media coverage for this player. There's nothing routine about this player, or the coverage - and this is an example of WP:NOTROUTINE! Nfitz (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some reliable sources of Sabah, Anadolu Agency and Takvim exist (present in the article itself). Enough coverage to keep. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 10:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and not significant enough to meet GNG. GiantSnowman 11:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely sources that are not "routine", as explained above. See the sports section of what is and is not routine coverage. --Coco (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The online Turkish-language coverage is not in-depth and generally consists of routine transfer speculation. Jogurney (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete he is not fully pro yet, there is no actual claim to notability. We should not be creating articles because people are on a path that might lead to notability, we wait until they actually reach notability to create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete fails WP:FOOTY, and I would think is under the notability threshold.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Even though I understand and appreciate the efforts of User:Cocô53 and User:Nfitz, and I thank them, and normally I'd vote to keep Ravil Tagir's article, I must vote for deletion of Ravil Tagir as well as I demand Burak Ince to be nominated for deletion, as per the status quo Turkish leagues in WP:FPL. Although current status is on sole discretion of limited number of editors who are aware of WP:FPL project page (many editors are ignored), my objection in general continues that Süper Lig, TFF First League, TFF Second and TFF Third League are classified as professional leagues, as constituted and governed under Turkish Football Federation. I brought enough level of 1st party evidences (no POV, no Transfermarkt) to display here that these are professional leagues. I invite everybody to contribute this discussion about status of these leagues. Another issue is that the definition of "Fully Professional League" at WP:FPL still does not exist, yet many articles are deleted pursuant to votes relying on this hollow notion. This is absurd and disgraceful for efforts of all editors with good faith! Editors who utilise this criterion to vote to delete must fill under the notion of "Fully Professional League". Again, I vote Tagir to be deleted as per status quo, but I want Turkish leagues to be recognise under "List of fully professional leagues". Dear User:Cocô53 and User:Nfitz, I appeciate your efforts also here but first, there's a clarification needed. Regards. Isik (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on User:Isik - you think that the Turkish level of football is fully-professional, but you are casting a delete vote? Isn't that an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Looking back at that discussion, even User:Fenix down thinks the second tier is likely fully professional. But why do you talk about professional instead of fully professional? If you are paid €10 a week to play football, you are professional, but clearly you are not fully professional (full-time), because you need another job. The examples you brought forward in that debate were about what the top players on a team make. It doesn't matter what the top player on the team makes. What does the 18th player on the team make? Though there are many examples of leagues where some teams are fully professional, and others aren't (the 5th and 6th levels of English soccer for example). So really the question is what does the 18th player on the lowest-paid team in the league make? Everyone here would be happy to add more leagues to WP:FPL if references can be found that support it. Nfitz (talk) 16:11, 24 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ART Factory[edit]

ART Factory (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 was created by the CEO of the company (Indication). Fails every single notability guideline. No in-depth, reliable sources exist. Just a piss-poor advertisement for a very non-notable company! Speedy delete. MaysinFourty (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: Google search yields nothing. It doesn't even seem to have its own website. --Ab207 (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Piss-poor advertisement indeed. Sources are trash. Absolutely non-notable company. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing of prominence comes up on search. Further, the findings from the nominator @MaysinFourty: labels the intent. Ktin (talk) 23:43, 19 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kaufmann[edit]

Steve Kaufmann (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 fails to meet the criteria of the general notability guideline and uses Wikipedia as a promotional medium. A page about Mr Kaufmann's business (Lingq) was deleted in August 2009, a previous version of this page was deleted in September 2009, and another page about him (Steven Kaufmann) was deleted in January 2018. Khiikiat (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Steve Kaufmann is clearly notable in being one of perhaps three or four recognised Hyperpolyglpots in the world. Speaking between 15 and 20 languages, depending on how you count it, he is in the top 4 in the world for being able to speak the most amount of languages...clearly this is a notable acheivement. He is active in the world of multilanguage speakers, both a speaker and organiser of conferences, has won awards for his work, and was featured in a documentary. He has written a couple of books and has a successful youtube account (268k subscribers, which I'm pretty sure is the largest multi language learning channel, more than many others who do have wikipedia pages) where he offers advice and techniques for language learning. He has travelled overseas and been interviewed for his language ability, giving the interview in the local language. He is also a good example of older people with successful Youtube accounts (which 2 articles have addressed specifically) and an advocate for older people learning languages. Since the time that the previous articles were deleted there is now more discussion of him, with new RS, which has been added to the article. IMHO He is long overdue a wikipedia page. Thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please note one of the previous pages was deleted for being promotional. The focus of the criticism, a language learning business, is not mentioned in this article - this article focusses specifically on his abilities as a language speaker, and his efforts to spread techniques. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Agree that the article subject does not appear to meet GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Tone of the article is promotional. Citobun (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Citobun I have adjusted this article, and actively tried to discuss what he has done in a neutral fashion, and was mainly trying to focus on his abilities and achievements, rather than take a promotional tone. I've not mentioned the name of his books, OR even the name of his language site. If you have suggestions for exactly what is promotional here, and should be removed, please let me know - happy to makes changes and remove anything to deal with that criticism of the article, at least.Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Notable polyglot and Youtube personality, in fact I was looking for an article on him.† Encyclopædius 18:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is sourcing in several reputable publications: Arab News, Japan Today, The Japan Times, The Montreal Gazette, and Catalan News. I also don't see any promotional language in the article, and no basis is given for disputing neutrality (a linguist is unlikely to have negative publicity). The language is matter of fact and doesn't directly promote any of the subject's business ventures (alluding to them in a general way is okay). Easily passes WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Kaufmann is included in a significant way in several resources, here, here and here. This passes WP:GNG. Mepo233 (talk) 21:47, 25 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genopole[edit]

Genopole (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)

Cross-wiki spam, disguised by multiple but related IP's The Banner talk 15:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Definite red flag of spam, upon further check with other wiki. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch version of this article is also nominated for deletion. There is in fact a whole bunch of French institutions that is written/expanded by one range of IPs: 2a01:c000::/19. One of the IPs worked on the article] in French, German en Wikidata, all on the same day. The Banner talk 17:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And no, in this case I have no clue how to start a sockpuppet investigation as it looks to be a case against an IP-range. The Banner talk 18:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing mostly off-topic discussion from now-blocked users. Mz7 (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think you need to think on previous warnings given to you : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AThe+Banner 92.184.116.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] LOL, you have already lack of content based arguments that you have to become personal? The Banner talk 10:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Please stop having fun on Wikipedia and doing WP:POV. Here it is a serious place. Thank you. 2A01:CB09:D033:B009:FD83:808E:1B28:F6B7 (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Keep. This is very notable institution, public, non-profil, worldwide known. English Wikipedia is not Dutch Wikipedia. I am also wondering about WP:POV of « The Banner » user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.184.116.35 (talk • contribs) Yes, I understand that you want to protect this article. Funny enough, in this whole mess there are IPs active from two IP-ranges. The one mentioned above and the range 92.184.116.0 - 92.184.117.255. And see, we have two IPs from that range. The Banner talk 10:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Once again, please stop using Wikipedia to have fun and make jokes. I am sure you will find other places for that. Thank you very much for your understanding. 92.184.107.70 (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] I guess you will find this a joke too? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YtoSu. The Banner talk 11:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] (Personal attack removed) 2A01:CB01:3049:1832:DDB1:10B3:1ECB:958 (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] Keep. The article bas not been created by « ip » but by myself. I did it because it is a non-profit very famous institution on genetics. Last but not least, English Wikipedia is not the Dutch Wikipedia. YtoSu (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete On top of the other stuff, it doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, either. Language barrier likely affecting BEFORE, but the article has only provided three references, two of which are not independent. I'm not following the "English Wikipedia is not Dutch Wikipedia" statements. What does that mean for keeping an article? Side question: Why is this tagged as an AfC submission? I can't tell that it actually was... -2pou (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - changing !vote per sources uncovered below showing that they WP:NEXIST. Thanks for posting them, Elmidae & Comte0. -2pou (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Admittedly the current sourcing makes the baby Jesus cry, but there are at least a couple of serious articles about the project: [7], [8]. Branciard (ref #1) may be connected to the project, Dupuy-Maury (ref #2) appears to be an independent journalist. Not sure whether that's sufficient for GNG, but I would tend to say yes. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no clear opinion on whether this particular page should be kept. However, I think we need an article on biocluster, which appears[9][10] to be what they're calling sort of miniature Silicon Valleys for biotech these days. There were 180 of them in Europe a decade ago, according to that 2011 paper. It's possible that this page should be kept, and it's possible that it would make more sense to write a more general article and list it as an example of their intentional specialization in "biotherapies" (vs. other specific biological sciences or vs. a random assortment of biological sciences). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources from Le Parisien ([11], [12]), Les Echos ([13]), La Tribune ([14]) make the article pass WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, effectively this article is created by a sockpuppeteer? The Banner talk 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm leaning towards WP:TNT prima facie it appears notable, however the sockpuppeting activities is of concern. --Devokewater (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per sources above   // Timothy :: talk  13:33, 27 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. Tone 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royce Isaacs[edit]

Royce Isaacs (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 professional wrestler, fails WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable professional wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 24 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. Tone 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobcad[edit]

Bobcad (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)

NN company, fails the GNG, WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. No coverage in reliable sources found (even under the company's correct name of "BobCAD-CAM"), except for namedrops and casual mentions. It exists; I just can't find evidence that it's notable. Notability tagged for over a decade.

NB: should reliable sourcing surface, I strongly recommend a page move to the company's correct name. Ravenswing 21:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 21:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 21:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Computer-aided_design#Software. This doesn't seem notable enough for an article, but it might be worth mentioning in the list of Cad software in that article. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. I don't see much point in redirecting to a list article, is that normal? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not many sources available, WP:SIGCOV QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 01:04, 27 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. Per WP:RELIST it is not usually appropriate to relist a debate more than twice, and I find that nothing useful would be likely to result from spinning the wheel and pushing it out another week. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All-American Baseball Challenge[edit]

All-American Baseball Challenge (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 the title sounds impressive, and the teams in this competition appear to be verifiably real, though from minor and independent leagues it would appear to me that this competition is simply something for fans to watch while the 2020 Major League Baseball season reorganizes itself. That said, in my opinion there appears to be enough online mentions of this competition for this article to be considered via an WP:AFD discussion, rather than outright WP:A7 deletion. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This subject has clearly received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per WP:GNG. It doesn't matter if the subject is only meant as an event for MLB fans to watch. AviationFreak💬 11:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Darkest of Discos[edit]

The Darkest of Discos (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 GNG for Music WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 09:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 09:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 09:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and [20]. It won an award in ECMA 2011 Music Award. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting Pink With Knives[edit]

Cutting Pink With Knives (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)

NN band, fails the GNG and WP:NBAND. No substantive coverage in reliable sources beyond namedrops, interviews (explicitly debarred by NBAND C#1) and casual mentions. Notability tagged for over a decade. Article created by SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this was. Ravenswing 16:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 16:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 16:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And it should probably be moved to Cutting Pink with Knives if kept. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, their MySpace page is titled "Cutting Pink With Knives is dead," so I'd guess they did capitalize the 'with.' For what it's worth. Ravenswing 18:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Interesting band. Their name alone caught my attention. And "electronic grindcore" - my brains are blown. Interesting combination. Here's an album review from Drowned in Sound which is a reliable source. Update: Sputnikmusic and a review of their concert with Polysics. This might do it. The rest of the results are the standard unreliable sites, stuff where the words are separated and sites of dubious reliability.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, found Drowned in Sound and Time Out, but that was about it... Caro7200 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Happy to address those three sources. The second is a namedrop; the third is a casual mention three sentences long. Neither comes remotely close to meeting WP:SIGCOV. As far as the album review goes, no criterion in WP:BAND is met by multiple album reviews, never mind by a single one. (Notability for an album requires multiple reliable reviews in its own right.) I stand by my nomination. Perhaps this might wind up soft deletion, but I'd like to point out to the next closing admin that no one, as yet, has advocated keeping this article. Ravenswing 03:36, 27 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoiT International[edit]

DoiT 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)

Fails WP:NCORP (see WP:ORGCRIT). Poor sourcing: Glassdoor, Crunchbase, press releases (GlobeNewswire, PRNewsWire). WP:COI / WP:UPE concerns. Loksmythe (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as above, fails to meet WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. Jr8825 • Talk 15:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, can find nothing but press releases and posts to a few low-notability blogs. Article creator also created one about the company's CFO at Giridhar Premsingh, which is also currently at AFD. Captain Calm (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - found a few blogs and promotional primary sources but nothing else. Certainly fails WP:NCORP. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:37, 25 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 12:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spilulu[edit]

Spilulu (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)

Sources cited are youtube links and unreliable blogs and websites. A websearch doesn't find anything concrete. Fails GNG, WP:NSINGER - hako9 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, the sourcing in the article is trash. But the Google results aren't any better. Same old junk sites like Facebook, Apple Music, SoundCloud, etc, etc. No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt any possible derivation of his name. An article on this guy was already deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dj Spilulu, and at one time there was also an article under his given name Christian Mbolela (the page was moved in the middle of that first AfD, I think). In this version, most of the sources are YouTube videos that he probably uploaded himself just like anyone else could. Sources that are not YouTube are mostly unreliable promotional sites that reprint press releases. He has self-promoted on dozens of sites that allow beginners to do so; at least he is thorough, but Wikipedia is not one of those sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:03, 19 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. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sur Piyasi Music Academy[edit]

Sur Piyasi Music Academy (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:ORG. Zero significant coverage. I did google search but found nothing. Most of sources listed in the article are primary or passing mention. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

বন্ধু আফতাবুজ্জামান, Sur Piyasi Music Academy এই পেজটি আমা তৈরি করেছি। এটি একটি জনপ্রিয় গীটার ও সংগীত প্রশিক্ষণ কেন্দ্র। অত্যন্ত জনপ্রিয় ১৯৯৪ সাল থেকেই। Sur Piyasi Music Academy এই নামে গুগল করলে গুগল ম্যাপ, ফেসবুক পেজ, ইউটিউব চ্যানেল পাওয়া যায়। যে রেফারেন্স রয়েছে তার মধ্যে এই সংস্থার অধ্যক্ষের নামে একটি ওয়েবসাইট রয়েছে। আমি এই সংস্থার সঙ্গে যোগাযোগ করে বিস্তারিত প্রমাণ জানার চেষ্টা করবো। দয়া করে আমাকে বলুন কি কি রেফারেন্স সঠিক প্রমাণ হিসেবে বিবেচিত হবে। বন্ধু ভালো থাকবেন। Arindamchandra123 (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No sources to be found. Fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG. SD0001 (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 17:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SUR PIYASI MUSIC ACADEMY

46/13, Shyama Nanda Bagchi Ln, Mohon Roy Para, Berhampore, West Bengal 742103

Is the address of the school, as per Google search the address of the said school is found. Editors please see the matter. Arindamchandra123 (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that the school doesn't exist but what makes it notable? Spiderone 14:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. WP:BEFORE showed nothing. Fails WP:NORG WP:GNG WP:NSCHOOL   // Timothy :: talk  13:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cerity Partners[edit]

Cerity Partners (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:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-03 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was 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. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Kojo Afandoh[edit]

Benjamin Kojo Afandoh (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)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy GNG. Furthermore article claims she is an actor but I can’t see subject satisfying any criterion from WP:NACTOR. A before search links me to self published sources or sponsored posts hence automatically classified as unreliable Celestina007 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. This is a very new article. In its current shape notability of the subject is not demonstrated, but with more time and help, the creator may find better sources such as newspaper reviews. Mccapra (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra, not sure how that logic is plausible in this scenario. In any case they could always ask for a WP:REFUND. But for now per WP:CRYSTALBALL a delete seems most apt. Celestina007 14:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: maybe WP:TOOSOON, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR   // Timothy :: talk  13:53, 27 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 19:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Inn Center[edit]

Drop Inn Center (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)

run of the mill local organization. Fails WP:NORG and WP:NONPROFIT. Graywalls (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I guess it's called Shelterhouse now. There's some coverage of it online under the new name. Although, I can't find anything that's not either local or trivial coverage. Maybe someone else can. Until then though, this doesn't seem to pass WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Tentative keep local sources, as long as they are reliable, are fine; there's no need for national or international attention. Articles on homeless services are few and far between here on Wikipedia, let's try a little harder to find sources for it. I can try scouring some newspaper databases when I'm home from work. ɱ (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:AUD part of WP:NORG. It's a fail under WP:NONPROFIT, because it's not of national/international scale. Graywalls (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I agree with this. I write about many local places and issues, and it's sad to see a rule that discriminates against local topics. Nevertheless, this is more than just an agency/nonprofit, much of the article is/could be about the physical building, the homeless shelter. It's more than just an organization, and has to be treated by general notability guidelines moreso. ɱ (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to strong keep based on hundreds of sources in the Cincinnati Enquirer, a regional newspaper of high reputation. ɱ (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Nevertheless, this is more than just an agency/nonprofit, much of the article is/could be about the physical building, the homeless shelter. It's more than just an organization, and has to be treated by general notability guidelines moreso." Strongly disagree. If you haven't noticed, newspapers in many areas routinely talk about sizable buildings being demolished, rebuilt, renovated, named in honor of whatever. If there's a shoe store that's in a notable national historic registry listed building, those articles can not be used to inflate the notability about the article on a shoe store, but if the notable building has a page, then a sentence or two about the shoe store is likely warranted if an article about the building mentions the shoe store. The principles of no inherent or inherited notability may apply here. Some of the articles are primarily about Buddy Gray. The founder being notable, or the organization being notable does not establish notability between both. The founder could be notable, but that doesn't guarantee the organization being notable. Currently, there's an article entry for both. Graywalls (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of our disagreement on that, I provided sufficient sources from across the state and other areas, in many different newspapers. There is no valid argument left for deletion. ɱ (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also appearing throughout Ohio and Kentucky: the Akron Beacon Journal, the Newark Advocate, the Kentucky Enquirer, News-Herald in Port Clinton, Mansfield News Journal... ɱ (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I added four more references from the Cincinnati Enquirer, where the Center has sometimes been front-page news. (See especially "Will the Drop Inn Center be pushed out?" from January 2008.) This is not "local or trivial coverage". Cincinnati is a big city, and front-page news from the Cincinnati area is "regional". I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that that would count as one, per WP:MULTSOURCES. Graywalls (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Graywalls yhat it should count as one source. I'm also still waiting for you to show me a guideline, or hell even a discussion, that agrees with your whole thing about a local source from a "big" city (whatever that means) counting as a regional one. Especially since you keep using it everywhere to justify keeping articles and in extremely missleading ways. Adamant1 (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a nationally-syndicated article from the Associated Press: "Homes for the homeless are where his heart was: Cincinnati complex named for advocate", from January 1999. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was published in a local Ohio newspaper. Not to say your wrong that it was "nationally-syndicated", but I'd like to see what national source it was originally published in, if any. Personally, I think it's deeply flawed to treat the associated press like a national news organization, because that's not what it is. Since it operates as a cooperative, unincorporated association. So, just because a minor local newspaper associated with it prints something supposedly by the Associated Press it doesn't automatically make it a national news story or magically turn them into a national news outlet. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the clipping, it says Associated Press at the top of the article. The Associated Press is a national news reporting and distribution service, which distributes stories printed in more than a thousand newspapers across America. It is exactly the kind of coverage that you've been asking for. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know the article says it's from the Associated Press. The whole "cooperative, unincorporated association" thing was a direct quote from their Wikipedia article and that's really all I know about them. I'm fine using them as a source though. Although, a few people in the conversations I've seen about them have said it's better to cite them directly instead of the paper their article is in. Which is why I mentioned I'd like to know where it originally came from. So the article could cite the original source. I'm not going to nitpick it in this case though. You probably couldn't find the original AP article to cite anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the source shared by Toughpigs. That source is not even close to having the depth of satisfying CORPDEPTH. Graywalls (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's down to those who want to delete it to demonstrate that this is a run of the mill organization. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding that it's just the opposite. Would you happen to have the policy stating this? Graywalls (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC) @Rathfelder: Graywalls (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just about every largish city have ubiquitous homeless shelters. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and it's not a local guide or local chamber of commerce business directory. These ubiquitous presence needs to be notable enough to merit inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: [21] there are sources and Significant long-term coverage QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 00:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment What specific sources? WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't a source. The first source that comes up for me is called "In the United States. Congress. House. Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Subcommittee on Health - 2014" documents of those sort are considered a primary source. Graywalls (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided links to hundreds of news sources from Cincinnati and beyond, above. Please both, take a look at that. There is a wealth of resources here that cannot be ignored. ɱ (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Sorie Kanu[edit]

Benedict Sorie Kanu (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 or WP:NPEOPLE:WP:BASIC. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. Gives the appearance of being autobiographical/promotional.   // Timothy :: talk  06:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create

• Delete per nom. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. EverybodyEdits (talk) 22:56, 21 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) 08:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Drinks Group Holdings[edit]

The Drinks Group Holdings (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 holding company. I am not able to find any coverage that would satisfy WP:NCORP. Taking to AfD as a PROD by Þjarkur was contested by the page creator. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a single mention in independent sources. That goes for the company, its subsidiaries, and all of its brands. Am surprised not to see any coverage of their brands, would expect to find mentions in beer enthusiast blogs. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 24 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Misadventures of Oscar McFoisy[edit]

The Misadventures of Oscar McFoisy (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 newspaper column with a charming title. Amazingly, it had zero hits at the Internet Archive, and all the Google hits appear to be WP mirrors. I was prepared to call it a hoax but it does appear in one of the ELs ([22]). (Incidentally, I have never seen an article with this many tags.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:35, 19 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.