The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambience (film)[edit]

Ambience (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)

Non-notable film, no significant coverage from independent sources, per WP:NF (also deproded without addressing concerns from prod or discussion) BOVINEBOY2008 23:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - With no references and no Reception section, does not satisfy film notability, and does not appear likely to satisfy notability soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no references in the article, and I could find absolutely no coverage of this film. -- Whpq (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails to pass BASIC by spades. ——Serial 16:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phud[edit]

Phud (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)

Dab page contains three obscure slang terms and one person with this given name. I don't think there's a justification for a dab page here. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the purpose of a disambiguation page is not to list every possible usage of a term (WP:NOTDICT), it is to help users navigate between different Wikipedia articles with the same name. Since there is only one article with this name, the page serves no navigational purpose. Spicy (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, same reasoning as Spicy. Schazjmd (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I've heard "phud" used for Ph.D. on a number of occasions (I have this qualification myself), also referring to a senile professor. The term may be more common in the UK. I have to admit the vagina definition is new to me, however, that and the person with the name "Phud" are only added for completeness. I'd argue I found the term on other websites (I'll add links if you wish), the term does exist and this justifies inclusion. New words appear all the time, circulating in use before becoming mainstream and this is just such an example. Do we remove "Mackem" because it's not commonly heard of outside the UK?Beefy_SAFC
• Okay, so what changes do you want me to make to have it kept?
• I'll point out I had a page on a village called "Matho" in Northern India deleted due to someone saying it was rubbish, even though I'd included a photo of said place. This is not going to into a repeat of that, an instance where I ended up being able to restore the page three months later?Beefy_SAFC —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per aboveMajun e Baqi (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Striking Sock !vote -- Dane ^talk 04:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The existence of this spurious disambiguation page inhibits the use of Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Nika2020 (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Spicy ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Useless Dab. -- Dane ^talk 04:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per current policy. ——Serial 16:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Vincent-Anglade[edit]

Henri Vincent-Anglade (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 artist, no significant coverage in reliable sources. The references are identical, and are from the art gallery studios that show his work. COI, creator of article owns this artists work. All I could find were ebay and auction sites selling his prints. Netherzone (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Henri Vincent-Anglade should be kept and tagged for more citations. It has been up since 2014. Not sure why you would flag this for deltion and not René Vincent, which has no citations. I agree that Henri Vincent-Anglade does not have enough secondary sources, but at least give the Wikipedia community, and me, a chance to see the artist and add to the page. Assume a bit of WP:AGF. I enjoy Wikipedia and doing the research. Since it is an ecyclopedia, it should cover artists that have public works. --Greg Henderson (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Henderson, you are free to AfD the other article, or PROD it. I determined that this artist was non-notable after the BEFORE search I performed. It seems interesting that this artist is in your personal collection as indicated just after you created the article. That may be a WP:COI since you might have a financial stake in this artist's notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. I found him in the benezit ([1]) and I believe he's notable, but that article is a copyvio. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My aticle was a translation from french to english and was not verbatim and gave credit to author. I have since been in touch with the author of the page and she has given me permission to use the picture and info. I've added the link to Benezit Dictionary of Artists to this page. Sounds like from above, Comte0 believes he's notable. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use any contents that someone granted permission on specific-use basis. All contents used here must be legitimately in the public domain or the owner of copyright must irrevocably surrender all future control and release under the proper Creative Commons license in a way that is independently verifiable, meaning an editor saying "owner has given permission" is not adequate. Graywalls (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of permission, the article was properly sourced from the following citation: www.montmart.org. --Greg Henderson (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, that website fails WP:RS, WP:SPS. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have replaced the website URL with a valid citation that meets WP:GNG guidelines. The new citation is at: www.oxfordartonline.com.--Greg Henderson (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, somewhat reluctantly. The artist has had some works appear in the higher level auctions such as Christie's and Bonham's. However, besides the Benezit and montmart.org sources, I can find nothing at all. Willing to change my vote if someone can add at least one other decent source. Curiocurio (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to Greg Henderson below, I was able to find at least mentions in numerous early 20th century French sources, all respectable. With the Benezit entry, I think he scrapes over the GNG bar. Curiocurio (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curiocurio A lot of Henri Vincent-Anglade showings in Paris are coming up on hathitrust.org searches. For example, he mentioned in the catalog of the Salon. 1901 - 1909; and in 15 periodicals. On archive.org/, there is a 1906 article that reads: "...bequeathed to the Beauvais Museum a picture by Vincent-Anglade entitled "Intimate," once shown at the [Paris] Salon See the Paris Letter. --Greg Henderson (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I imagine the article has improved since the nom, but the current sourcing is fine: independent, third party and reliable: passes WP:BASIC. ——Serial 16:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natanya Singh[edit]

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

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

Unsourced actress who appears in item numbers/lead roles. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is high time we stopped allowing articles sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Passing mentions and no reputable sources featuring the subject. — Infogapp1 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. IMDb is a completely unreliable source. Fails GNG. Could not find much reliable coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails the most WP:BASIC requirements of sourcing, but I cannot find any more. ——Serial 16:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Review of Books[edit]

Oxford Review of Books (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 magazine appears to be of recent vintage (2017) and a student production at Oxford University. Nothing wrong with that, but Sufficient Independent Coverage Required nonetheless, and that is lacking. Almost all provided sources are either in-house or listings. The one semi-substantial other bit is this, which frankly strikes me as an arranged puff piece. (I'd also like to add that this 'About' page makes me want to erect a barricade and start throwing bricks...) I've had no look finding anything online to fill the coverage gap; suggest insufficient notability for an article at this point. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on a quick online research, it does not seem to be sufficiently notable. It might become in the future though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I haven't been able to find coverage beyond the single (probably) reliable source identified by the nominator. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete probably TOOSOON, but right now the sourcing is embarassing: blogs, facebook, self-published. ——Serial 16:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This discussion is being closed early per WP:SNOW. In my view, the article likely also qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:A7 and WP:G11. Mz7 (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katey Cattlehand Pluck[edit]

Katey Cattlehand Pluck (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 "actress, musician, designer, and cheerleader". I can find no significant independent coverage to support notability for any of those occupations, nor for general notability. Appears to be an autobiography. Schazjmd (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete complete GNG fail, no evidence of notability, autobiography. Borderline A7 material. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I hesitated on A7 because of the "signed to record label" claim, figured this was more prudent. Schazjmd (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sole independent source is an article about Hurricane Florence which is used to support an audition she had. Um, no. No evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and solely exists for promotional and webhosting reasons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, preferably speedy - A7, G11, take your pick. Being signed to a record label isn't a claim of significance if the label isn't notable. Cattlehand Pluck debuted as a solo SoundCloud artist on June 12, 2020 - really! One of the worst vanity pages I've ever seen. Spicy (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete autobiography, created by who appears to be the subject, full of original research. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. This appears to be a self-promotional autobiography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Could not find any reliable coverage. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Everyone above is correct on lack of sources and shameless self-promotion. Just to pile it on, we can assume the woman wrote this drivel herself because it contains the same types of woeful grammar as her social media, such as "Everyone hurts, except sex" or "along with her teammates, including Plucks, her favorite yellow bug." The time I spent reading this travesty would have been better spent watching paint dry. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Roy Bruce[edit]

Randolph Roy Bruce (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 as a whole and WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^hello 21:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 21:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 21:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 21:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. I assume that the page creator User:Peterbruce01 is a relative so I would also add WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per above, fails WP:GNGDelete clearly not notable by rank or awards per WP:SOLDIER, no indication of any chance of meeting GNG, also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• comment not entirely convince on him not being notable checking Trove shows some coverage over 30-40 year period see Talk:Randolph_Roy_Bruce#Trove_links none of those would meet substantial coverage criteria but they do indicate potential for more coverage in sources not online. As I'm not in South Australia I dont have the capacity to access such sources. Relying on full name google search when most records wont be using that name is not an effective judge of notability. Trove is a one of the better indicators to notability for Australians. Gnangarra 05:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The point about TROVE is taken, but I'm still not seeing evidence that he did anything notable. As a kid I used to like getting my name in the newspapers or my face on TV. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking across a range of search terms, I couldn't find any references in any newspaper databases available via NSW State Library. Cabrils (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, fails WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have been unable to find any third-party, independent sourcing for the subject, so the article fails WP:BASIC. I also note that winning the MM is insufficient to pass WP:NSOLDIER. ——Serial 16:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, and a consensus that the subject is independently notable; concerns on how this article is integrated with the broader series can be handled outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Divas Lip Sync Live[edit]

Divas Lip Sync Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete per WP:GNG - the topic did not receive extensive coverage that warrants an independent article. The article is made up of information taken from the main series page at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3)#Episodes. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GNG. Notable people impersonating notable people in an episode which received sufficient coverage by independent reputable publications. The article should be expanded, not deleted, and actually this would make a nice little Good article with a bit of work. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets GNG, concurring with Another Believer. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To expand on what Another Believer wrote, this episode is about notable people impersonating notable people on a notable show. There's also adequate sourcing. I agree with expanding, not deleting. --Kbabej (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly passes GNG. The article cites plenty of standalone coverage in publications like Billboard and The New York Times. Armadillopteryx^talk 06:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• question for Another Believer, Gleeanon409, Kbabej, Armadillopteryx - What does this article add that couldn't be contained or isn't already covered at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3)#Episodes or List of Drag Race Episodes? One of the things about independent articles is they should build upon parent articles, not duplicate content. Furthermore, if they're unlikely to grow beyond stubs they probably shouldn't exist. If you look at the page view stats for the episode they're at an average of 21/day versus 2,978 for the parent season's page. This also suggests that the episode is not a viable search term and in terms of people actually finding the information, it would better served at the parent album's page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That May be true for now, but it’s hard to say long term that the article won’t evolve, which, as I can attest, takes only a determined editor who does the research and the work. AfD is about the possibility that an article can become good or better, not if the material can be also found on other articles.
  I know this can become a good article because *every* episode is reviewed by multiple sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) This article isn't a stub (and as others have noted, it could easily be expanded), so I'm not sure how if they're unlikely to grow beyond stubs they probably shouldn't exist applies. List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes doesn't include episode descriptions at all, and RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 3)#Episodes includes much less episode-specific content than this article. Plenty of FA-class articles average fewer than 25 views a day (e.g. here and here and here), so that's not an indicator of the subject's value to the encyclopedia. I bet the page views would go up if we just linked to this article from the bodies of some other articles (e.g. contestants who participated)—right now, most of what links to it is just from the navbox. Armadillopteryx^talk 09:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect, that's a poor reason. The topic is over two years old. If it was going to receive more coverage it would have done by now. While I agree that it has received some coverage from notable sources, the information contained is limited and as I've said its not really a viable search term. If people want to see this information (there's very little that isn't already at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3)#Episodes or List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes), they're more likely to access it from the article about the season. From a user experience point of view, it makes no sense to make them click through to this article where 80-90% of the content is repeated from the main article. Its sounds a bit like people want it purely for GA purposes (broad coverage is part of GA criteria) - which isn't a dead certain anyway. If we think about it from an encyclopedia point of view and what's easier for fans, it would be containing the information on the main article page where it is more likely to be accessed and viewed (personal feelings aside). Also very few people know the actual names of the episodes. Armadillopteryx I'm sure Grey-necked wood rail Edgar Speyer had more views at the time they passed FA status and didn't have parent albums where the content could be contained so I think the viability of the search term does matter as does the page views when the content could be better contained elsewhere. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no reason to assume this entry will remain a stub forever. Just takes some volunteer(s) to expand. Sorry, Lil-unique1, but I don't see reason to delete this page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Its more the fact that most people don't know the names of the episodes that that the page views clearly show its not a viable search term. If as fans of the show and members of the project we want others to see more of the content then its plainly obviously that the content should exist at the main article for the season because very few people navigate to or search for the individual episode. The episode titles are not widely known about or displayed or referred to. I feel like everyone who's voted keep so far is a longstanding member of the project so the votes aren't necessarily as objective as they should be. WP:EPISODE outlines this. I would also like to say that as a fan of the show I want the content to reach as many readers as possible and it is my belief that more people would reach the article contents on the main article for the series. It's logical. I will wait for some more neutral editors to comment and of course I will accept the community consensus on this though I will say ardently, IMO that GNG has not been met (coverage is not broad). ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To me, that’s a reason to trim back what’s in the season articles and have a “Main article link” to the episode. But all the content will grow and improve with time.
  And we always direct readers to the best article to find information no matter the title. I’m not seeing any big concern. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A couple things:

• most people don't know the names of the episodes that that the page views clearly show its not a viable search term – there are lots of reasons page views could be low, some of which I mentioned above; not sure how you've decided the reason is so obviously the one you state. Or why you don't apply the same assumption to all articles with low page views, including obviously notable subjects like the many FAs that fall into that category.
• I want the content to reach as many readers as possible – as I and Gleeanon409 have mentioned, the way to get the most content to readers would be to expand and link this article from the body of more prominent pages, such as the season page and contestant pages. Deleting and/or trimming gets less content to people, not more.

Armadillopteryx^talk 15:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Another Believer; while I'm not fond of these articles myself, I this artcle clearly demonstrates compliance with WP:BASIC. ——Serial 16:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect can be separately created. Sandstein 08:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional colors[edit]

List of fictional colors (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 by a long shot, outside of the real-world analog Impossible color. Better covered at the corresponding TV Tropes page, Fictional Colour; any items not already covered there can be added. Apparently created as a page split, but it's unclear where it was split from. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy has an entry for color and this is prima facie evidence that the topic is encyclopedic. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LISTN. Fictional colors may or may not be notable, but a list of them isn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As stated by the nom, this topic fails WP:LISTN. The entry in the book mentioned by Andrew is almost entirely about real colors, and what they symbolize in fantasy and science fiction stories. There is only two sentences that mention three specific examples of fictional colors, which is not even close to being WP:SIGCOV. I've searched for additional sources under a variety of different terms and descriptions that might be synonymous, and have found nothing but some false postives. A brief mention in another article, such as color, stating the fact that fiction occasionally makes use of made-up colors, might be appropriate, but the massive list of badly sourced trivia does not need to be kept, and as the actual lead-in to this article is completely unsourced, there is nothing to preserve or merge. I should also point out that while a few of the entries appear to be blue-links, not a single one of them actually leads to an article on the color in question, making this useless as a navigational tool, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I transwikied the full article history to https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_fictional_colors Dream Focus 00:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete / merge. I think impossible color could use an 'in fiction' section listing some examples, though there is very little if anything in the current list to rescue. The source Andrew mentioned could be perhaps used for such a section, though as he did not bother to link it, well, it is hard to quickly judge whether it is relevant (if anyone gives me a link to it I can try to create such a section, if the content is helpful enough). There is no evidence provided it would be relevant to the list discussed here, which so far seems to fail LISTN. If anyone creates such a section, the fictional color redirect should be retargetted accordingly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the section in question, though as I mentioned, the actual information on fictional colors is extremely limited. Rorshacma (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a bit to Impossible_color#In_fiction. I think there is more to be said about it, if you for example search by the names of some fictional colors, there is surprisingly a lot of hits that seem to be related to literary analysis, for example, check the results you can get for "ulfire" and "jale". The current list has a lot of unsourced fancruft, but it is clear we need an article about colors and culture; note there is still no main article for Category:Color in culture. We may also have a problem with terminology, BEFORE for "fictional colors produces little, but I am getting a bit more for imaginary colors. Please see the sources I've added to the impossible color, I think at the very least referenced parts of the list should be merged there (well, except that upon closer review pretty much all the sources in the list are very poor, sigh). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this topic fails WP:LISTN. The title is not a useful redirect, and I don’t think it would be due weight to include examples at the potential target article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per rationale given above. It fails LISTN, and frankly Wikipedia does not need a list for everything. The topic itself is not notable enough. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per rationale given above. However, shift the various fictional words for infrared and ultraviolet to "in fiction" sections on those pages. Also, the words invented by Majliss Larson for Pawns and Symbols could be added to the Biology subsection on the Klingon article, making clear they come from a tie-in novel. Greer Watson (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - delete per the above comments. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Per my arguments above and WP:SOFTDELETE, I strongly suggest just redirecting this to Impossible_color#In_fiction I created. I believe that there is potential for expansions and with non-primary refs, a number of fictional colors seems to be mentioned in various works analyzing literary works, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete some fictional colors may be notable (with our record on creating huge numbers of articles on very minor things in works of fiction, the fact we have articles on some is not of itself notable) but they are not notable as a concept at a level that would justify having a list of them, especially a list that includes ones that are not notable on their own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Piotrus. I expect the topic of fictional colors is notable. pburka (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to the section described by Piotrus. It's always better to summarize the most important aspects in a section of prose than to try to create a questionably notable list of indiscriminate details. This topic doesn't have enough coverage in third party sources to meet the WP:GNG, but there's some verifiable material here that makes for a healthy section, in the context of a more notable and well-defined topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I agree with the above posters. On top of that, many of these colours are not fictional at all. A fictional alien species that can perceive ultraviolet does not make ultraviolet fictional. Reyk _YO! 22:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Piotrus, it is not notable on itself. Nika2020 (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:LISTN. -- Dane ^talk 04:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no prima facie evidence that the topic meets our notability guidelines. ——Serial 16:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Los Medanos, California[edit]

Los Medanos, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another rail station misidentified as a community. There was a Rancho Los Medanos and "three railroad stations were located on the ranch", one of which was Los Medanos. No other hits to indicate it was a separate community but there was Los Medanos school and hotel in Pittburg, Ca. Glendoremus (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I'm having a bit of trouble sorting out the topos but indications are that this was originally the crossing of two rail lines, one of which was removed, and that it was replaced by a branch/siding from the other line going off in a different direction. In any case it was and is just a rail point. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:GEOLAND specifics do not apply as it looks like this place has no legal recognition, and nothing more than trivial mentions can be found, failing WP:GNG. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur that WP:GEOLAND is not met if it is not a legally-recognised place. ——Serial 16:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tucker (photographer)[edit]

Mark Tucker (photographer) (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 commercial photographer. Fails WP:GNG at an rate. It's difficult for a photographer to become notable. This photographer did many album shoots, which explains the incoming links, but we are not going to have any encyclopedic information about the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. That's looks like long time stub ago. Well as fails WP:GNG. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 20:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Devokewater (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Passing mentions, but I didn't notice any outstanding (i.e. award-winning works) — Infogapp1 (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could not find any significant coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficient third party, independent sources to indicate compliance with WP:ANYBIO. ——Serial 16:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raafat Mohtadi[edit]

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

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

As far as I can tell, this player doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL, sources also sound routine which fail WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has scored 24 goals in the Syrian Premier League, which is listed at WP:FPL as being fully pro. On the letter of the law, he therefore meets NFOOTY. With the ongoing Syrian civil war, I think a discussion could be had about the ability to run a fully professional league in Syria at this moment – but that would need to happen at WT:FPL, and until then, he does meet NFOOTY. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply @Keskkonnakaitse: Sadly, games are mostly played in empty stadiums, teams can't afford to pay their players. Yes that listing needs a review, but under the current guidelines he will fail. Govvy (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – changed vote based on the discussion at WT:FPL. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Based on evidence in WP:FPL, Mohtadi fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The fully pro league guidelines are again shown to be absurd. We have gone to inclsionist extremes with footballers, which are not justified, and there is no reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources are WP:MILL, no indication that WP:ANYBIO has been met. ——Serial 16:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giveaway of the Day[edit]

Giveaway of the Day (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 website, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All sources on the page are completely unreliable. No reliable coverage found while doing a simple search. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Non notable. Nika2020 (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: all five sources cited in the article are primary sources either owned or strongly connected to the subject. The creator did not make any effort to include at least some secondary sources but completely relied on the subject's website. Jokolis (talk) 6:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Delete The sourcing, such as it is, fails BASIC: no indication of sustained coverage in third-party, independent sources. ——Serial 16:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails NCORP. ——Serial 16:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 00:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Softwareload[edit]

Softwareload (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 website, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename To Softwareload.de. Found quite a bit of coverage in German under that name, including a brief history in probably the biggest German langauge publication, Die Welt; [2] [3] [4]. Passes WP:3REFS and WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a search shows a number of articles about the subject in German, though some of them are press releases. This article should be updated with available sources and allow to remain published based on WP standard and guidelines at the time it was created. Jokolis (talk) 7:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: It has received some coverage, though most of them are in German. With sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamindir[edit]

Tamindir (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 website, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sign of significance worth an encyclopedia article. --Lockley (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no reliable sources cited in the article and there are no sources with which its notability can be established. Jokolis (talk) 9:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Delete sourcing fails to satisfy BASIC. ——Serial 16:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn, following a source-focused WP:HEY from that self-same nominator  :) (non-admin closure) ——Serial 16:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Family Plan (1997 film)[edit]

Family Plan (1997 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)

A mere mention of the film from Variety does not constitute as significant coverage per WP:NFSOURCES. I admit that the article might qualify per WP:NFO (since the film stars notable actor and comedian Leslie Nielsen) but I leave it to consensus to decide. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 02:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added sources from Chicago Tribune and Variety, but they both mention the film only briefly. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added more sources from The Buffalo News, South Coast Today and Sun-Sentinel, and again they're brief mentions of the film. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the sources mentioned above are enough to pass WP:NFSOURCES, I request that the nomination be withdrawn. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruturaj Singh[edit]

Ruturaj Singh (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 cricketer, does not pass NCRIC Spike 'em (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt The article(s) of which there are many and of various spellings and names were created and promoted by a sock farm. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imrutu. Investigations find a cricketing gentleman of this name who is too old to be the subject of this article. Likely to be a hoax based upon the determination with which the sock farm pushed it. Prior incarnations included the word Sisodia whcih is a potential BLP violation anyway as a caste name where the subject has not self identified and references to that are not provided. Fiddle Faddle 19:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is a similarly named, notable, player Rituraj Singh which the creator of this article had tried hijacking. The links provided on article do mention Ruturaj, but there is not enough coverage to pass GNG and no evidence that he had played in any games that would lead him to passing NCRIC. Spike 'em (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:HOAX. StickyWicket (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)d[reply]
• Dont delete as per refrence link given in refrence section,u can verify that link and then decide to delete or not,evidence has been provided thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by VK1818 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)— VK1818 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Imrutu (talk · contribs). [reply]
• Delete a non-notable cricket player. Cricket is as far as I can tell the weakest link in our coverage where we have allowed our over broad guidelines to justify way too many articles on people with no realize coverage. This is one of the factors in us about to reach 1cmillion articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dont Delete please do it if its still verifiable,and u say its the weakest link check the link twice and comment your opinion brother Dvd303 (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)(talk)Dvd303 (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)DvD303— Dvd303 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Imrutu (talk · contribs). [reply]
• Delete- as per Nom. Dtt1^Talk 14:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dont Delete as per nom, refrence links given . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samer rizvi (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — Samer rizvi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Imrutu (talk · contribs). [reply]
• Dont Delete as per nom refrence is enough that that person exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samer rizvi (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — Samer rizvi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Imrutu (talk · contribs). [reply]
• Comment there seem to be a number of new accounts who have made no other edits than taking part in this AfD (and are making the same spelling mistakes). Spike 'em (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As if any more proof is needed, this comment was removed by Dvd303; I'm restoring to the place in the page that it was before this happened. Spike 'em (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to be clear, it is all of Dvd303, Samer rizvi and VK1818 that I am referring to here. Spike 'em (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Samer rizvi: you can only vote once at AfD and this person, even if they exist, has never played at a notable level that satisfies WP:NCRIC. StickyWicket (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nom,and this Cricketer is non notable and never played at notable level thankyou WP:NCRIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samer rizvi (talk • contribs) 09:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Samer rizvi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Imrutu (talk · contribs). [reply]
• Delete or speedy deletion required, the user had enough given refrence link as a notable person but ok as per Wikipedia requirements this page requires a speedy deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvd303 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Dvd303 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Imrutu (talk · contribs). [reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Christ, this has been a sockfest ain't it. But JPL is wholly correct, our notability requirements were notoriously slack in the cricketing department. Third-party reliable sourcing has not been presented to demonstratee the requirements of BASIC; I was also unable to discover any. This is particulalry essential when dealing with a BLP. ——Serial 17:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. The scorecard references from CricHQ are almost surely fake (a top-order batsman opening the bowling and bowling 23.1 overs in a 50-over match! [5]). Dee03 19:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 03:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Chair[edit]

The Devil's Chair (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 film with a lack of reliable sources. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as meets notability with reviews. I found four reviews, two of which are of magazines of some repute. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it has been reviewed in multiple reliable sources such as Variety, Exclaim, Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, DVD Talk and others shown here so it clearly passes WP:GNG and deletion is therefore unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources added by DiamondRemley39. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mark Roberts (singer). No consensus to keep this article, and a uniform consensus to redirect to the Mark Roberts article (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Ffyrc[edit]

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

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

As with the current AfD discussion for the related band Sherbet Antlers, this page fails WP:NBAND: and as with that nomination, an Alternative to Deletion might be a redirect to Mark Roberts (singer). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mark Roberts (singer). Page is completely without sources. Non-notable band without any reliable coverage. Redirect to band's most notable member would suffice. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mark Roberts (singer) as not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mark Roberts (singer); no indication that this group received the sustained coverage to pass WP:BASIC. ——Serial 17:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Itimi[edit]

Peace Itimi (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 ref bombing is a mere facade as this is a promotional piece for a subject that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Half the sources used in the article are either not entirely about her & the other half which appear in reliable sources are mere interviews hence not independent of her hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. A before search shows no evidence of true notability as she is mentioned majorly in unreliable blog sources. At best this is case of TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. There are plenty of hits to videos and writings by her, but hardly anything about her to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely found anything about her aside from a few sources which talk about her activities. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Good nom. Nothing suggests she has received the sustained coverage to warrant an article/. ——Serial 17:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mediacraft Associate[edit]

Mediacraft Associate (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 topic is a PR firm that won the Public Relations Consultancy of the Year (2019) at the Lagos PR Industry Gala & Awards. No other claim to notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:the subject of the article meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP because it has significant independent secondary media coverage. The reason that only one award won by the subject is not significant enough to make it notable does not apply because awards are not part of the primary notability guidelines. But this same award has made the subject more notable because the subject received significant coverage when it was bestowed with the award. Kindly keep, do not delete. John combo (talk) 6:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: the organization is notable for a WP entry based on a quick search conducted and the analysis of some of the sources cited in the article. That the organization has won only an award should not be the determinant of its notability as there are thousands of notable organizations for WP entry without an award per WP guidelines. This award is an added advantage to the notability of the subject because it received significant mentions in independent secondary sources when it was honoured with the award. See these: [[6]] [[7]]. The subject also received significant mentions in independent secondary sources when it was appointed PR Agency of what appears to be a reputable conglomerate financial institution. Checks in some of the sources cited show that the appointment followed a competitive process in which a number of PR firms participated as can be seen here [[8]] [[9]] . The financial institution that appointed the subject of this article is an independent organization and its announcement of the subject as its PR agency in secondary sources should count for the notability of the subject. Jokolis (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the organisation meets WP:NCORP based on the sources available. Maco Paco (talk) 6:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment A PR company has managed to generate PR about the fact that it does PR. That’s all we have here. The sources repeat the same press releases verbatim. This is promotional junk, not in-depth coverage by independent journalists. Mccapra (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that the three "keep" "votes only have a few hundred edits between them; while there's no minimum edit-count, of course, it does rather suggest possible inexperience with our deletion process (particularly when they are all presenting variations on WP:ATADD. Hpefully the closer will take this into account... ——Serial 17:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I blocked them all as socks. MER-C 08:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did wonder about them. Mccapra (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - likely paid-for spam. MER-C 08:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long Beach Records[edit]

Long Beach 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)

Obscure label. Geschichte (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass WP:NMG. Not a notable record label. No notable press or accomplishments.Behindthekeys (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (although not "per nom", as the nomination statement itself verges on the bizarre). But the avalable sources do not demonstrate that the label ever received sustained, independent coverage in reliable third-party: fails WP:NCORP. ——Serial 17:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Sab Chor Hain (1956 film)[edit]

Hum Sab Chor Hain (1956 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)

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb (not WP:RS) since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search didn't even turn up the plot (which the article lacks0, let alone anythng in-depth. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems not notable. Just to note; article was created by a sock. --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I know - I have it and a couple of others bookmarked, and am slowly working my way through their efforts like this one. Narky Blert (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Is moving to 'Draft' WP:DRAFTIFY and recommendation to rework the article, and introduce into mainspace, an option? If so, I would recommend that. This seems to be a movie by a very popular actor of his time, Shammi Kapoor. There might be some merit in exploring this in the WP:DRAFT space. Kaisertalk (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. There's no point in draftifying if there are no sources. Narky Blert (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete articles sourced only to IMDb should not be allowed to stand 4 days, let alone 4 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not believe that SIGCOV is met: sources have to be both independent of the topic and indicate persistence of coverage, neither of which is the case. ——Serial 17:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nickwan Qaderi[edit]

Nickwan Qaderi (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 and does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Two refs are listed. 1) is a google search results page which only seems to show download sites and Youtube music videos. 2) is the artist's bio on their record label.   // Timothy :: talk  17:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  17:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. As the first reference shows, he has few hits on Google, and there's absolutely nothing to demonstrate that he passes WP:SINGER. The edit history quacks of autobiography. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It is too early in his career for a WP article and this is probably an attempted promotion. At least in English, he cannot be found in any significant and reliable media sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possibly TOOSOON. ——Serial 17:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Socionym[edit]

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

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

Per WP:NOT#DICT   // Timothy :: talk  17:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DICDEF. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete per WP:DICDEF. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 21:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per policy and to Wikitionary. ——Serial 17:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Atalanta. Content seems to be there already, but some may want to merge the sources. Sandstein 10:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hylaeus and Rhoecus[edit]

Hylaeus and Rhoecus (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)

Only primary sources, seemingly not of independent interest, but can probably redirect to Atalanta. Geschichte (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Atalanta, unless there's another topic that would be more appropriate ("list of centaurs" appears to concern asteroids). The sources are fine, however. P Aculeius (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, found these from a quick gsearch - the two centaurs being shot by Atalanta, the masked bee genus of around 130 species named after the centaur Hylaeus, some sort of merge/redirect to Atalanta may be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One of the primary sources mentioned above by user Geschichte is listed, together with another one, in William Smith's, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (originally published in 1848) on the subject, available at perseus.tufts.edu. I kept the reference to the second original source of the article, and replaced the refercence to its first original source by a single one to the Dictionary (through which both original sources listed there can be reached), and also corrected a couple of mistakes (factual and philological) [10]. I think that a reference to a modern or contemporary reliable source has to be added, too. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Queen (1956 film)[edit]

Jungle Queen (1956 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)

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing in-depth; not even the plot, which the article lacks. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete first google hit lead me to a porn side .___. (Google search link from the top of the Afd). So, well, I found practically nothing about the film. --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Including "1956" in the search string minimises distractions. Narky Blert (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Spiderone 07:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, with no offense to the memory of Fearless Nadia. --Lockley (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above stalwarts. ——Serial 17:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nai Maa (1960 film)[edit]

Nai Maa (1960 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)

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS]) IMDb since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search failed to find even the plot (which the article lacks), let alone anything in-depth. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This should not have survived 4 days with no reliable source let alone 4 years. However considering we have biographies of living people that have survived over a decade longer than this article only sourced to IMDb the saddest thing is that this is not even an especially problematic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Spiderone 09:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - article now properly referenced. --Soman (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing comprises almost exclusively WP:MILL and WP:NOTDIR-style mentions. No indication of sustained coverage in third-party, reliable, independent sources. ——Serial 17:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, and while there is a strong consensus that it meets LISTN, there are articulated concerns that this list could be bordering on being unwieldy/too-broad and in needed for further organization/splitting/sub-division outside of AfD (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of slave owners[edit]

List of slave owners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a useful topic for a list - this could apply to almost any notable figure in many time periods and places. I think it would be difficult to redefine it in a useful way. Let's just get rid of it. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN – see the scholar link above for many interesting papers. The "not useful" nomination is WP:NOTUSEFUL. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scholarly sources discuss lists of slaveholders at a particular time and place. (I believe most of the references are to a list of British slaveholders who received compensation on the abolition of slavery.) This is an indiscriminate list of all slaveholders, ever.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The complementary category structure shows how it can be organized or subdivided. postdlf (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as index of articles by significant shared fact per WP:LISTPURP and as complement to Category:Slave owners per WP:CLN. The nom’s only substantive complaint is just a question of development and organization, not deletion. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The claim that this could apply to almost any notable figure in many time periods and places strikes me as dubious. And as Postdlf mentions above, this could easily be broken down into sub-articles (and should be, as part of the process of expanding and improving the list. It falls well within the guidelines for lists, as mentioned by Andrew Davidson and Postdlf. Guettarda (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the nominator really believes that most notable people enslaved other (presumably nonnotable) people, then we could perhaps have a list of those few who didn't. pburka (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not say that "most notable people enslaved other people", but I would say that is principally because of recentism. Slavery existed in China, it existed in ancient Rome, in the Ottoman Empire... etc. And it is documentable for many many people articles in Wikipedia. I would estimate tens of thousands of entries, but that's just a guess. Brianyoumans (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good. Round up the sources, bring 'em on. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list will probably need to be reorganized to accommodate that many documented slave owners. Oh well. pburka (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It needs more references and information, but it's a notable topic, and "let's just get rid of it" is not an acceptable rationale. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic passes
• Keep per WP:NLIST Lightburst (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a horrendous mess of unsourced rubbish. It misses people from many cultures that were very big slave owners. Is Tippu Tip who may have owned over 10,000 slaves even on the list?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This blanking is completely unacceptable. You've really made a habit recently out of taking wrecking balls to clearly fixable content, and showing up just to !vote delete for "problems" easily fixed. If an entry is missing that should be on the list, add it. If an entry lacks an inline citation, add it. If you are interested in doing neither, move along and let those who can edit constructively do so. postdlf (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The burden is on the person who adds the entry to source it. The burden on anyone else is to remove everything that is unsourced unless they can find a source, but they have the responsibility to remove an entry if there is not a source. It is time we stop perpetuating these horrid lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try reading all of WP:V: "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." postdlf (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Every entry in an article like this should be sourced within the article. We should not have any blank accusations of slave ownership without any sourcing. This is just plain wrong. Lots and lots of these articles are ascribing all sorts of things without any good sourcing at all. It needs to stop and removing such things is totally justified. If the entries can be sourced than add sources. There is no justification for this inclusion of all sorts of people on the list with absolutely no sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So fix it by adding sources. The other lists you've indiscriminately blanked recently all had sources for the entries in the linked articles, so those could clearly be migrated over to the lists just as here. As the internally unsourced entries in this list are dead and so not subject to BLP, there is no urgency and so no justification for blanking. If you think an entry is incorrect and therefore that the inclusion is unverifiable, that's a different story, but you just seem not to care either way because you're clearly not taking the time to actually see if it can be verified, not even by looking at the linked article. It's hard not to read that as intentional disruption and it will stop. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what we did with List of entertainers who performed in blackface over the last month, and I think that page is much improved. We're keeping a close eye on unsourced additions, and filling out the items with a bare source with more details. It's not rocket science, it just requires a few people who care to work on it and then keep an eye on it. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment slavery has meant different things in different times and places, a list like this treats as one phenomenon what is actually several different phenomenon which we inprecisely use the same word to describe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Any hope that such lists can be kept to only sourced entries is a false hope because there are too many editors who will add entries without bothering to provide any sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clear inclusion criteria of a notable topic. I picked ONE unsourced entry at random, and guess what, I found a source straight away. Much more productive to do this than wholesale disruptive blanking. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and -- of course -- improve), per WP:LISTN. -- The Anome (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, have left the following on the article's talkpage that highlights the problem with having such a wikilist - "hi all, I note that presently there are around 230 people listed in this article, of those about 190 lived 17th to 19th cents, and yet, for example, there are 1000s of romans at the category:Roman people by century, the majority of whom were slave owners (let alone all the other ancient peoples), who have not been included. Why the undue weight?". Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That English Wikipedia has a bias towards topics related to English-speaking countries and recent history isn't undue. If you examine some of those thousands of Romans, you'll notice that most of their pages are permastubs because we know almost nothing about, e.g. Acidinus. We simply have access to more and better sources for 18th century people than 1st century people. pburka (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable topic with several available sources. I would suggest removing the unsourced entries and the mythological characters (Abraham) to clean it up. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:LISTN. -- Dane ^talk 04:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Preferably Delete -- This has the feel of ATTACK article. However I suspect that I am in a minority; so I offer an alternative, which is to split. Part of my reason for this is that almost every prominent person in the American South and West Indies will have owned slaves, so that this is too universal a characteristic for the list to be useful. I would suggest that this be split into separate lists for each American colony/state. In those areas, it would be more useful to categorise (or list) non-slave owners. I doubt it is useful to combine these early modern slave owners with those of earlier periods as "slavery" was a somewhat different institution. One might have slave -owner lists for those periods, but, again, it is likely that every prominent Greek or Roman had slaves. I thus doubt that such lists are useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aag (1967 film)[edit]

Aag (1967 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)

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up the plot (which the article lacks) and passing mentions 1 and 2, but nothing in-depth. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 11:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication from a WP:BEFORE that the subject received sustained coverage in reliable sources. ——Serial 17:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I/O Kit[edit]

I/O Kit (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 development kit ThursdayMorningF (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could not find any significant, secondary coverage. Best I could find was a tutorial. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly non-notable software; a WP:BEFORE indicates it has not received the sustained, in-depth coverage in multiple, independent relible source to pass our most WP:BASIC requirements.
  Having said that, I am wholly curious as to a new account whose first edit is to file an AfD. Either there's a COI (admittedly of a negative kind), or ... ——Serial 17:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mark Roberts (singer). Tone 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sherbet Antlers[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is redirect to most notable member. Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mark Roberts (singer). I've also started a deletion discussion for the related band Y Ffyrc. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Mark Roberts (singer) as not independently notable imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect no evidence that the sources bear the weight of a standalone article. ——Serial 17:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article passes WP:GNG after improvements as highlighted by participating editors with adequate reliable sources (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 12:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Weird School[edit]

My Weird 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)

Non-notable book series, in which its article is already very weak (pretty much a list of books and characters with in-universal tone and completely no citations). The only news articles I could find to mention My Weird School (such as an Education Week article and this New York Times artile) just have trivial mentions. There's a Common Sense Media review but I don't think that's adequate (the Plugged In review wouldn't be adequate either). Perhaps merge this article with the article for its author, Dan Gutman. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 18:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 18:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In addition to the nominator's list of sources, I also added a couple more newspaper articles to the page (The Herald News, The Morristown Daily Record) and the Kirkus Reviews listing for the first book. It's not a lot, but I think that collectively this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Toughpigs: Could you summarise the Herald News and The Morristown Daily Record sources for the benefit of those us who can't access them via newspapers.com? It's not clear from the article whether they contain substantial discussion of the series, or mostly address the author but touch on the series in passing, or somewhere in between. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The Morristown article is about the author going to schools and talking to kids about how he became a writer. Early on, it says, "Gutman has written more than 90 books during his career, including his very successful My Weird School and The Baseball Card Adventure series, but his books weren't always thought of as a big deal." There's another sentence later on that describes the series, and in the three quotes from kids, the only book mentioned is My Weird School. It's also the only book pictured. So the article as a whole is predicated on the fact that Gutman is a successful author, and My Weird School is the primary thing that made him successful.

The Herald News article is entirely about My Weird Writing Tips, a special book in the My Weird School series that uses the series' characters and setting to teach kids how to write.

By the way, you can get free access to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. You should check it out, it's really cool. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Toughpigs' sourcing looks to be just enough. Needs a lot of cleanup, but it looks like a GNG pass. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from nominator: May withdraw/speedy keep tomorrow if there's enough support. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and selectively merge (i.e. merge the sourced prose, not the lists) to Dan Gutman. The sourcing isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG: of five sources cited in the article, only one actually deals primarily with the series. There's some coverage of individual books in the series, but I don't think we can use coverage of those books to establish notability for the series as a whole (this is not quite what WP:NOTINHERITED says but it's along the same lines). I haven't been able to find any other sources. (With thanks for the helpful summaries to Toughpigs, whose recommendation I may well take up.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following Megalibrarygirl's improvements. It's still my view that the reviews of individual books do nothing to establish the notability of the series, but the two references that review multiple volumes, in combination with the Common Sense Media page, are sufficient. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep/Merge to Dan Gutman. I'm pretty much on the fence on this one. Most of the in-depth sources are focused on the author, and only mention the series as part of the wider discussion on his work, which could easily be included on his page. But, there are a few brief reviews on some of the individual books, and the one on the series as a whole, that might make it worthwhile to keep this separate. So, I am fine with either option, depending on the rest of the consensus. At the very least, it could use some cleanup, and remove some of the stuff like the unsourced, bare-bones character list. Rorshacma (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• With the improvements mentioned below, I'm fine with this one being an outright Keep now. Rorshacma (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've found a ton of reviews of the books in the series and more information which I added to the article. It wouldn't make sense to have an article on each part of the series and reviews of individual books do make mention to the series as a whole. I hope that my copyedit might sway Arms & Hearts and Rorshacma to change their !votes. Hop over to the article and see the rewrite I did and the sources I added. As an anecdote, as a librarian, I can attest to the huge popularity of this series among kiddos coming to the library. Before COVID-19, those books were flying off our library shelves and I constantly had to replace the well-read copies. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the last bit, please note popularity ≠ notability. I did like the reviews you added. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 14:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right about the popularity angle, PrincessPandaWiki. I brought it up mostly because I thought it was interesting and sometimes it shows that even if things are off our own radar, that doesn't mean they aren't important to others. I think popularity can show possible notability. But it's totally not a slam dunk! Personally, I would never have heard of the series before if I wasn't a public librarian! My kids never read the series. Glad you liked the sources. If you need full text, let me know :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article contains a good number of lists, but there seems to be sufficient sources to show it's a notable series. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might not be as big as Horrid Henry but still clearly a long-running and popular children's series, and the article as it now stands has adequate sourcing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatzia Otto[edit]

Ignatzia Otto (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 sources do not seem to be about her. The article says she only particiated in one outdoor play. The rest reads like genealogycruft. Geschichte (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, per WP:A7. Importance or significance of the subject not established. Domeditrix (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H'mm. She married a notable director and was mother to a notable actor: they sound like credibe claims of significance to me: A7 clearly does not apply, User:Domeditrix. ——Serial 17:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A WP:BEFORE does not indicate she received sustained coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. ——Serial 17:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Hotema[edit]

Hilton Hotema (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 reliable sources mention Hilton Hotema or his fringe ideas about health. No reliable sourced content has been added to the article since it was created. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could not find significant independent coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 17:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG, no evidence of notability. Interesting information at [ https://www.amazon.com/Hilton-Hotema/e/B00ITG2MVM ] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)--Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, published within his own closed circle and not notable outside his little walled garden. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My pseudoscience-related literature covers a number of authors and some related topics but no mention of Hotema. The currently used sources are suboptimal and few. —PaleoNeonate – 20:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I trust Paleo on this one. ——Serial 17:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdraw. Author withdraw (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mudja[edit]

Mudja (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 has unreliable/spam sources and zero reliable sources. 59.10.232.165 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination completed on behalf of IP as per WP:AFDHOW.

Other AFD nomination by the same IP:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baka Prase

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Just like Baka, Mudja has been featured on Politika and Danas.rs two strongest Serbian news outlets. Mudja has been one of the biggest Serbian YouTube stars, and still is, though Baka surpassed him. -User:PolePoz (talk) Creator of article. 7:04PM, 12 July 2020 (UTC
• Keep - Sources are less convincing than in the Baka Prase AfD, but the Politika source definitely helps establish notability. It even refers to PewDiePie as the Mudja of Sweden. All things considered, the article meets GNG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdraw. Author withdraw (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baka Prase[edit]

Baka Prase (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 has unreliable/spam sources and zero reliable sources. 59.10.232.165 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination completed on behalf of IP as per WP:AFDHOW.

Other AFD nomination by the same IP:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mudja

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He is discussed in some depth in Politika. Looking through a translation of the site's "About Us" page shows that it's been publishing for over a century. The Wikipedia article on Politika refers to the publication as Serbia's "newspaper of record" (along with a quotation and reference to a reliable source). Some other sources appear to be more tabloid-style, but reading through the "About Us" pages and the stories about Baka Prase's popularity and reception in Serbia shows that he is clearly a significant person. I wouldn't say that all 123 sources meet the criteria at WP:RS, but there's more than enough to meet GNG. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely Keep - Baka Prase is literally the central figure in Serbia at the moment! He is considered to be one of the Top 5 biggest idols of young people in Serbia, along with Tesla, Novak Djokovic and few others. Baka Prase is a page which should definitely stay on wikipedia, he literally took over the news in Serbia, being one of the most talked people in Serbia. I'm pretty positive that Baka Prase is at the moment more popular then numerous Serbian singers, actors etc, also there is so many references for Baka, though i agree probably some references do not meet the criteria, but there's so many references, news outlets about him. Also he has been on the Politika and Danas.rs, one of the strongest Serbian news sites.-User:PolePoz (talk) 6:49PM, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per above. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson impersonator[edit]

Michael Jackson impersonator (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)

Previous AfD closed as a redirect to Impersonator; the content and sourcing now doesn't seem substantially different to its appearance then (diff, if that's helpful). Article was then recreated, but I'm not convinced it offers much in the way of evidence that the concept of a MJ impersonator is notable, in the same way that Elvis impersonator is; it's mostly just a list of "X impersonated Michael Jackson on occasion Y". Also a couple of the links are tenuous, thus reducing the amount to which their sources contribute to notability even if we ignore that it's mostly just a list:

• In the film Maanthrikam, a character "dances in a 'weak imitation' of Jackson", which hardly counts as an impersonator.
• Move Like Michael Jackson was a TV show finding people who could dance in his style, not impersonate him.

There are two sources present that might indicate notability:

• [11], which is a New York Times article about someone called Lorena Turner photographing Jackson impersonators;
• [12], which is a Daily Telegraph article about tributes being paid to him upon his death by impersonators.

Both the example of Lorena Turner (but sourced to the deprecated Daily Mail instead of the NYT) and the Telegraph article were present when the AfD was closed as "redirect" last time.

To be clear, I'm not denying that some instances of Jackson being impersonated are notable; I'm just not sure that what's here (or what can be found elsewhere) adds up to the WP:SIGCOV for an article on the concept. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I vote to keep the article. Michael Jackson is certainly one of the most impersonated celebrities. That said, yes, a lot of work is going to be required to transform and improve the article so it reaches the level of the one on Elvis Presley's impersonators. However, not all articles need to be long (just substantial enough). Israell (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are lots of reliable sources here. I also considered a merge with Michael Jackson, but that article is already way too long.Behindthekeys (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Behindthekeys, They're reliable sources, but I'm not sure they give significant coverage of Michael Jackson impersonators as a topic (rather than of the fact that X played Michael Jackson once). As it stands, the references are for an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of times someone's impersonated MJ. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 21:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Behindthekeys: Cultural impact of Michael Jackson would be a better merge target that could incorporate this easily. postdlf (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep i think, this (the phenomenon itself) is notable. For example also because the article receives 25,000 views per month. I know this has nothing to do with official policies, but why delete something if a lot of people are interested? --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because Jackson is one of the most impersonated artists of all time and since his death sources have said he’s the second most in the US, and the most impersonated around the world. The lead to this article looks as though it can be expanded and slightly improved, but the reasons to keep the article outweighs the reasons to not keep it, and that’s because there are no reasons for a deletion. Keep and improve. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see the usual empty arguments for keeping this page, such as "it's interesting to lots of people" and "there are a lot of examples of the subject". It doesn't matter how widespread a phenomenon is if it doesn't add up to a decent amount of specific coverage. This article is just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of stuff with little encyclopaedic value and not much potential for expansion. Popcornfud (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect, I think this might be worth a couple sentences or short paragraph in Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, but I'm not seeing a basis for a standalone article (and if that changes then it can be WP:SPLIT back out). It can definitely be condensed based on what's there, particularly since many of the examples do not actually appear to be about impersonation, which (as the nom notes above) requires more than just "danced in the style of." postdlf (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems eminently sensible. Possibly worth deleting and recreating as a redirect if either of these options taken; after the redirect outcome of the previous AfD was carried out, it seems to have just been undone to recreate the article. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 15:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC), second sentence added 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. The article is sufficiently well-sourced as a phenomenon. It can be improved by learning from the Elvis impersonator article. Too large to be merged into cultural impact of Michael Jackson so stand-alone makes sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The 2014 New York Times article is reasonably strong evidence for MJ impersonation as a concept being notable. The other cited sources are generally about individual impersonators. Those sources at least indicate that there's SIGCOV support for a list article (which is more or less how the article is currently structured). I would also not oppose a merge into Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, but it would be my second choice. Colin M (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. It obviously needs work, but WP:ARTN says that the current state of an article doesn't affect the subject's notability. There are enough sources currently cited in the article that can be used to expand. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep − There are some exceptions, like Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson (and others celebrities like Madonna, Cher or Monroe) within this topic. We can see their examples as a topic in literature, arts and others references from popular culture. Even we have some photos in Commons about this topic on MJ. Maybe, Elvis impersonators could be helpful as a reference, or y'all can check out as well Madonna impersonators [es]. My second option would be merge into Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lorena Turner, a teacher at Cal Poly Pomona, wrote a book called The Michael Jacksons dedicated to the topic of Jackson impersonators. That book was reviewed in the New York Times, by Slate and by KCET. All of these reviews devoted significant coverage to the topic of Jackson impersonators. The topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into Cultural impact of Michael Jackson. I agree with Apoxyomenus' assessment. Garlicolive (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]