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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah Junction, California[edit]

Hallelujah Junction, 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)

It's clear from every source I've found that this was never more than a road junction. The notability issue is that it is name-dropped a lot: by weird place names people, by roadside oddities people (there was a tree heavily decorated with shoes nearby which was removed a few years back), by rockhounds (a distinctive smoky amethyst is collected nearby), by mining stats people (there was a pumice mine to the south: you can still see the hole, which is listed separately on GNIS), and by the composer John Adams, who supposedly has a house in the general vicinity and who named both a piano piece and his autobiography after the place. All that was ever at the spot itself, as best I can determine, was the intersection and a store, both of which have been heavily modified over the years. I'm not terribly convinced by the origin story for the name, which sounds frankly like fakelore, especially since neither Fairchild's county history nor Gudde's gazetteers appear to mention the place. So, is the place notable because it's mentioned a lot? Right now, an accurate article would say "Hallelujah Junction is a highway intersection where there is a gas station and store," and then go on to list some of these other things. I'm not fully convinced this is enough, especially since the one reference which would unquestionably remain is the John Adams material, which is at best two sentences in his article. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have improved the article with history and this source: https://www.tipurdy.org/hallelujah-junction-2/ A place that had an airport seems important; the fact it was obliterated for a freeway is merely interesting. Goldenrowley (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sourcing. -The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The "tipurdy.org" source presented above, while interesting, doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source that might confer notability onto this subject—it looks like someone's blog that doesn't necessarily have editorial oversight beyond the judgment of its sole author. Even if it was reliable, I feel that we would need additional evidence of signficiant coverage beyond that single paragraph about the subject (the relevant notability guideline here is WP:NGEO). As it stands, I am inclined to agree with the nominator that this appears to have been a WP:MILL road junction. The song Hallelujah Junction by John Adams is interesting, and there is some coverage available about the song [1][2], but the road junction does not automatically inherit notability from the song—we would need evidence of independent coverage about the junction specifically. The name of this place appears to be ambiguous with a Wildlife Area also in California. Mz7 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It was just a road junction which doesn't lend itself to notability. On top of this, it is a former road junction. The lack of depth of notable, reliable sources is another nail in the coffin for this article.Knox490 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I had some time to take a closer look at this subject today, and I wonder if another angle to this might be WP:GEOLAND, which provides near-inherent notability to Populated, legally recognized places. This entry in the Geographic Names Information System seems to categorize this as a "populated place", and there are some news articles that describe it as some kind of landmark or community, e.g. [3][4]. I'm not sure if this is the kind of place that enjoys automatic notability per GEOLAND. Mz7 (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing is inherently notable. Per WP:NGEO, "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable." A presumption of notability can be (and often is) challenged. The General Notability Guidelines calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I don't believe this subject meets this standard. Glendoremus (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A generic information article sourced with enough references.DMySon 06:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rachel Bloom. This discussion seems to have produced a rough consensus against both keeping and outright deletion with opinions on whether to merge or simply redirect being divided. In such cases my customary practice is to go with the least drastic option. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Shit (You've Got to Vote)[edit]

Holy Shit (You've Got to Vote) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject does not pass our notability standards. Not a notable song per WP:NSONG and the video is not notable Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep - I was able to find some pretty high level reliable source coverage pretty easily, both in and outside of the music industry. The Vanity Fair source even makes claims that stunts such as this may have negatively affected voter turnout in the 2016 US Election. I assume this was just a failure to follow through on WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rachel-bloom-elizabeth-banks-sing-support-hillary-profanity-filled-funny-die-video-944341
2. https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7565686/rachel-bloom-moby-funny-or-die-voting-video-hillary-clinton
3. https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/11/celebrity-endorsements-donald-trump-hillary-clinton
4. https://time.com/4558336/rachel-bloom-elizabeth-banks-and-moby-sing-youve-got-to-vote/ Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I did a before. It is easy to get attention with a profane song about Trump. I suspect whether this article is kept or deleted may also depend on your politics WP:NETRUMP like this lyric...Donald Trump is human syphilis. Sometimes WP:IAR is a good option. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is relevant. NETTRUMP (an essay) says Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. If the latest outrage has no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed not to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. To summarize, the subject you’ve nominated is not something Trump did, and it is covered by reliable sources. It’s the opposite of NETTRUMP. Your defense of the nom is even worse than the nom itself. It easily meets the WP:GNG with this level of sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are upset with the nomination. I cited an essay about Trump and it was the only semi-humorous essay I could find which is tangentially relatable - we often use essays in AfDs WP:FANCRUFT etc. I do not think the article warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. The article was prodded when I saw it this am, so I am sure I am not alone in my determination. We determine notability in this way. Soon enough there will be a consensus so there is no need to get cross. And I did cite a policy WP:IAR. So we disagree. I will retreat from the AfD unless I am pinged. Cheers! Lightburst (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not upset. Just pointing out all the flaws in the nomination and subsequent doubling down on its defense. You also haven’t given any valid reason to invoke IAR. The irony here is that you seem to be the only one treading on any WP:ATAs, your response to all these mainstream reliable sources feels like a mix of WP:NOTNOTABLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT violations. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Sergecross73. I think there is a sufficient coverage in sources of this particular Holy Shit. Yes, it is related to US politics and certain politicians, which only makes it more notable. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Hollywood Reporter, Billboard, Vanity Fair and Time: obviously reliable, independent sources, speaking about the topic directly and in detail. The rest is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It needs a little expansion. Nonetheless, with reliable sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just because something gets coverage in light of it being part of a much bigger event does not mean it itself is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, you’re citing WP:NOTNEWSPAPER for...a song...? That received dedicated reliable source coverage in and outside of the music industry? In very mainstream sources? That doesn’t make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Rachel Bloom. Notable? Doubtful. WP:NOTEWORTHY? Clearly. BD2412 T 00:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rachel Bloom. I grabbed some news sources with the intent of expanding this, but got stuck beyond the basic description present in the article now. Although there are several sources, they are all immediately focused on the 2016 election. I would expect for clear notability, there would be sustained coverage of it since. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rachel Bloom since that seems like the fair compromise to outright deletion. Since this doesn't seem notable enough on it's own but someone might still search for it. So, a redirect seems reasonable. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Selective merge to Rachel Bloom#Career 3rd para maybe. A line about the existence and subject of the song to that para seems reasonable. Per Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album, and I don't see this article growing beyond a stub, ever. Also, incredibly poor arguments by nominator. Failing to mention why exactly this fails notability when high quality sources exist, and then citing WP:NETRUMP and WP:IAR, for what exactly, to reinforce own bias? - hako9 (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rachel Bloom. The Vanity Fair piece gives the song a paragraph as one example of celebrity endorsements of Clinton, the rest are short 'check out this trending video on Youtube!' articles. Made big enough splash to mention in her biography but not big enough for a standalone article. --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rachel Bloom#Career: Changed my vote, per reasons above. Though the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG, I believe there's no way the article can be expanded. It's best to discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rachel Bloom since the subject lacks the attributes for a stand-alone article. -The Gnome (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bithumb[edit]

Bithumb (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 only proper articles written about this Bitcoin exchange were written when it was robbed. Wikipedia is not a news site, and a robbery does not warrant notability. Notability therefore not established. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am ambivalent. Sometimes a news event is notable. So I will think on this. Lightburst (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst:, are you aware of how many hacks have happened over the years? Wikipedia never covers the actual hack in detail (details are almost never released anyway!), so there is not enough content for an article. If you think the subject of exchange hacks is notable, we should just have our own list that would be analogous to that one. One could also cover security issues in general to include stuff like this one. Note that I was employed at Electrum at the time of that issue. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MILL. It's a bitcoin exchange that was hacked. So what? Bearian (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article needs some clean up. Nonetheless, it has received some coverage, including its venture to the indian market, its introduction of BTCS, its launch of Bithumb Coin and its partnership program, among others. With these reliable sources, the article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: those are all PR publication websites that are pay-to-publish and will publish absolutely anything. They are not reliable sources, they are not reputable sources, they cannot be cited! Notability has NOT been demonstrated, I maintain my position that the article must be nuked. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Jang, Hyeji; Han, Sung H.; Kim, Ju Hwan; Kown, Kimin (2020). "Identifying and Improving Usability Problems of Cryptocurrency Exchange Mobile Applications Through Heuristic Evaluation". In Ahram, Tareq; Falcão, Christianne (eds.). Advances in Usability, User Experience, Wearable and Assistive Technology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51828-8_3. ISBN 978-3-030-51827-1. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  2. Park, Jae-hyuk (2020-06-25). "Bithumb IPO plan facing skepticism". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  3. Kim, Chang Yeon; Lee, Kyungho (2018). "Risk Management to Cryptocurrency Exchange and Investors". 2018 International Conference on Platform Technology and Service (PlatCon). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/PlatCon.2018.8472760. ISBN 978-1-5386-4710-3. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  4. Lee, Kyung-min (2020-01-16). "Bithumb dispute taken to Tax Tribunal". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-02-16. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  5. Park, Ga-young (2019-01-17). "Crypto exchange Bithumb scales down on poor market conditions". The Korea Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  6. "Hackers steal Bitcoin funds from Bithumb exchange traders". BBC Online. 2017-07-05. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  7. Hyun-su, Kim (2018-05-16). "Bithumb's Plan to List New Cryptocurrency Faces Backlash". BusinessKorea. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.
  8. Kim, Cynthia (2017-12-12). Coghill, Kim (ed.). "Bitcoin exchange Bithumb says 'right' regulations in South Korea would boost market". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25.

  Sources with quotes

  Jang, Hyeji; Han, Sung H.; Kim, Ju Hwan; Kown, Kimin (2020). "Identifying and Improving Usability Problems of Cryptocurrency Exchange Mobile Applications Through Heuristic Evaluation". In Ahram, Tareq; Falcão, Christianne (eds.). Advances in Usability, User Experience, Wearable and Assistive Technology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51828-8_3. ISBN 978-3-030-51827-1. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The abstract notes: This study aims to discover the usability problem of KDEX and Bithumb. Four experts conducted a heuristic evaluation based on ten heuristic evaluation items. Twenty-six usability problems were found in KDEX and eighteen in Bithumb. The article notes: Bithumb is an exchange started in 2014. It is a large cryptocurrency exchange that has 4.5 million members with a global trading volume of about 1 trillion won per day. The article notes, "Most problems of Bithumb were in structure and shortcut". ... Bithumb has the most problems with the logical composition of the screen." Park, Jae-hyuk (2020-06-25). "Bithumb IPO plan facing skepticism". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: Bithumb's planned initial public offering (IPO) could face a setback as it has yet to announce details as to how it plans to address some outstanding issues that could prevent it from achieving a successful IPO filing here, mostly related to recent cryptocurrency taxation issues. ... Stock market experts, however, warned that Bithumb's IPO will take a long time and the company may fail to fulfill the strict requirements to become a listed firm. ... Bithumb's governance structure is shrouded in secrecy. According to its regulatory filing, Bithumb Korea's largest shareholder is Bithumb Holdings that had a 74.1 percent stake as of the end of 2019. Kim, Chang Yeon; Lee, Kyungho (2018). "Risk Management to Cryptocurrency Exchange and Investors". 2018 International Conference on Platform Technology and Service (PlatCon). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/PlatCon.2018.8472760. ISBN 978-1-5386-4710-3. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: Bithumb offers both the security services provided by the exchange and the user's notes at the same time. Users should keep in mind the information about cookie information management, vaccine check before accessing the exchange, and information about fake domain name and texts. Users who are not particularly familiar with security can take primary prevention through these instructions. In addition, Bithumb provides the following security services [7]. Lee, Kyung-min (2020-01-16). "Bithumb dispute taken to Tax Tribunal". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-02-16. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: Korea's leading cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb filed a complaint with the Tax Tribunal against the National Tax Service (NTS) over what it considers a "groundless" tax the agency imposed on its customers, the company said Friday. The firm claims that the cryptocurrency is not a legally recognized currency and therefore lacks the authorities lack the grounds to impose a tax of any kind. Park, Ga-young (2019-01-17). "Crypto exchange Bithumb scales down on poor market conditions". The Korea Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: BTC Korea, operator of Korea’s largest cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb, is paring down its workforce as the market is showing no signs of an upturn, according to industry sources on Jan. 17. Once the largest crypto exchanges in the country, Bithumb has retrenched 30 employees, accounting for about 10 percent of its workforce. The company offered retirement packages that included support to help them change jobs. "Hackers steal Bitcoin funds from Bithumb exchange traders". BBC Online. 2017-07-05. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: One of the world's largest cyber-currency exchanges is under investigation after it acknowledged that one of its employee's PCs had been hacked. South Korea-based Bithumb has said that it believes personal details of more than 30,000 of its customers were stolen as a result. ... Bithumb allows its members to buy and sell the virtual currencies Bitcoin and Ethereum. It is South Korea's biggest cryptocurrency exchange, based on recent trading volumes, and one of the five largest in the world. Hyun-su, Kim (2018-05-16). "Bithumb's Plan to List New Cryptocurrency Faces Backlash". BusinessKorea. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: Top South Korean cryptocurrency exchange Bithumb has withdrawn its plan to list a new cryptocurrency following a backlash from investors over suspicious business ties. Bithumb announced plans to list a new blockchain platform Popchain (PCH) on its official website on May 15, but it postponed the scheme the next day after media reports that just two accounts owned over 90 percent of all traded tokens, which are also known as Popcoin.</blockquotee> Kim, Cynthia (2017-12-12). Coghill, Kim (ed.). "Bitcoin exchange Bithumb says 'right' regulations in South Korea would boost market". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2020-07-25. Retrieved 2020-07-25. The article notes: Bithumb has been at the center of the speculative frenzy. With about 70 percent of market share in South Korea, it has been the dominant place that ordinary South Koreans go to buy and sell the virtual currency.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bithumb to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• BBC Online noted about Bithumb in 2017, "It is South Korea's biggest cryptocurrency exchange, based on recent trading volumes, and one of the five largest in the world."

  Reuters noted in 2018, "Bithumb has been at the center of the speculative frenzy. With about 70 percent of market share in South Korea, it has been the dominant place that ordinary South Koreans go to buy and sell the virtual currency."

  The Korea Times noted in 2020, "Bithumb's planned initial public offering (IPO) could face a setback as it has yet to announce details as to how it plans to address some outstanding issues that could prevent it from achieving a successful IPO filing here, mostly related to recent cryptocurrency taxation issues. ... Stock market experts, however, warned that Bithumb's IPO will take a long time and the company may fail to fulfill the strict requirements to become a listed firm."

  A 2020 Springer Nature article that discusses 18 usability issues in Bithumb noted in 2020, "Bithumb is an exchange started in 2014. It is a large cryptocurrency exchange that has 4.5 million members with a global trading volume of about 1 trillion won per day."

  Cunard (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment By now, Cunard well knows the criteria for establishing notability and ref-bombing an AfD with references that fail the criteria in WP:NCORP is annoying and disruptive. Cunard is also aware that "sufficient coverage in WP:RS" is also not accurate since the "coverage" must meet particular criteria. It's quality of coverage, not volume, which we require. Cunard also knows that we require references that are *not* based on company announcements, are more than a *mention-in-passing*, do not rely entirely on material produced by the company and is not just a review of their software but *about the company*. Using Cunard's numbering, (1) fails because it is a mere mention in passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (2) is a speculative piece on whether the company will, or will not, float on an exchange. At best some might consider it a weak reference, relying on a mixture of anonymous sources, emotive language such as "tightened his grip" and "unloaded his shares" and speculation about future plans. On analysis, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (3) is a mere mention in passing and relies on information provided by the company, has no in-depth discussion/opinon about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (4) is a report about the company taking a case against the Korean government, has no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (5) relies entirely on a company announcement of lay-offs, fails WP:ORGIND. (6) is a report based on the company announcing that it had suffered a data breach. Run-of-the-mill reporting, based entirely on the company's report, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. (7) is entirely based on company announcements and unattributed speculation. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Finally, (8) is also based on a company announcement and discusses the bitcoin market and bubble in general, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete totally agree this is WP:MILL the sources are extremely trivial and don't pass WP:GNG or any of the specific ones. Even the ones provided by Cunard. All of which seem to be WP:MILL and trivial topics. None of establishes the topic as being notable. Ref bombing a bunch of trivial unreliable sources doesn't change that. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per GNG. The BBC call the operation the fifth largest in the world, a clear claim of notability, the BBC are renowned for careful journalism. The company are involved in some rather interesting events, including the robbery of their exchange, ^[1][2], by North Korea!? It seems like they were also involved in a scandal which almost led to bitcoin being banned in South Korea^[3]. obviously once the BBC have noticed there are dozens of other stories. The Korean times is reliable, Reuters is reliable and the BBC is reliable. PainProf (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PainProf: the BBC has no way to verify this information, market caps are huge and cannot be seen as evidence of notability. Whatever counts as interesting to you does not warrant notability. We have no guideline claiming that we have a bitcoin exchange becomes notable because it was the fifth largest in 2017. Actually, I can't even find the claim ("fifth largest") in the BBC articles you linked. Can you show me? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It is South Korea's biggest cryptocurrency exchange, based on recent trading volumes, and one of the five largest in the world." Here It says the BBC have based that off trading volumes which suggests a journalist verified the claim. PainProf (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PainProf: How would a journalist verify the authenticity of trades performed inside an exchange? It took months before people found out about the fake trades on MtGox. There had been no time for research like that for a news story like this. BBC is mainstream media, it wouldn't be able to verify anything. Note how other non-industry media like the London Review of Books helped Craig Steven Wright claim he is Satoshi. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If an outlet such as the BBC makes a claim like that you would have to find a more reliable source saying it is not true. Regardless, it is a highly reliable source for notability. BTW in my opinion if there are articles such as this it is better if you include them in the nomination and describe why they are not reliable sources as they are not particularly hard to find, you should list them and describe why each is unreliable. The Reuters article in particular refers to a second scandal... PainProf (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked Wikipedia doesn't peddle in scandals. If your talking about the Reuters article referenced at the bottom of the AfD, which I assume you are, it isn't even about Bithumb and they are only mentioned briefly in relation to the police raiding them over "alleged" tax evasion. Last time I checked Wikipedia is pretty solid on not peddling in things that were alleged to happen. Especially since according to this follow up article by CoinDesk "No charge of tax evasion was found" and Bithumb paid the taxes without any objection. So, essentially nothing ended up happening outside of the initial scandal. That it was mentioned in Reuters isn't really relevant to that. I think trying to claim that kind of thing proves notability "because Reuters" is another good example of the WP:NOTNEWS standard that you and ToughPig have maligned me for citing. Sources like that, that keep getting pushed by people who just want to keep articles, and the usually passing trivial nature of "scandals" that you seem to think make things notable are exactly what WP:NOTNEWS is talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We dont second guess RS and question how BBC would have determined something based on an editor's opinion (aka WP:OR. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This one is easy. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single one of the references in the article or linked to above meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that do. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be notable for the hacking event, which is poorly covered in the article currently, but a huge number of RS as pointed out above meet WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just GYI, "a huge number of RS" is *not* a criteria in WP:NCORP for establishing notability. Also, *none* of the references above or in the article meet the criteria. Can you point to specific references that you believe meet the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nishan Sumanadeera[edit]

Nishan Sumanadeera (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 does not appear to be a notable entrepreneur or businessman. The article was created by a PR firm, and many of the sources in the article's citations are either dead or nonexistent. Aside from routine interviews (e.g. [5]) and a mention in this "venture capital journal", it does not appear that either this person or the consultancy firm he founded have been significantly covered in reliable sources. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable. --Devokewater @ 00:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk)
• Delete since subject fails WP:GNG, plain and simple. And because the stink of promotion is particularly nasty on weekends. The fact that the article has been created and then curated by this kamikaze account does not help either. Have PR people working in Wikipedia taken to hiding themselves now?-The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MimbleWimble[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability. No coverage that I could find in RSes on a WP:BEFORE - all coverage is primary, unreliable or crypto sites. No suitable redirect targets. Contested PROD, though the evidence proffered was this IBTimes story - but IBTimes is listed on WP:RSP as generally unreliable, so not a source of notability. David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since no evidence of notability adequate for a stand-alone article can be found. The text seems great for a brochure, though. Someone should save it up. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Trouble (Goosebumps episode)[edit]

Deep Trouble (Goosebumps episode) (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)

Covered in List of Goosebumps episodes. One episode of a 74-episode anthology series does not meet WP:EPISODE/WP:N. AldezD (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. We've gotten to the point where every single episode of every single TV show is thought to be inherently notable. It is not. Delete--there's nothing of note in this article. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I thought there might be a bit of coverage on this episode, as it appears to have been the series finale for the TV series, but that one top ten listicle that is being used as the sole source appears to be the only bit of coverage. All other sources appear to be talking about the book, not the adaptation. Redirecting to the List of Goosebumps episodes might be feasible, but ultimately kind of pointless - this probably is not a particularly useful search term, and nothing actually links to here except for that list itself. Rorshacma (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - What is even the point of this article?!?!. Why articles are popping up anywhere and everywhere about individual episodes of series is beyond my comprehension. I get it if the episode is one of a kind, like The finale of Friends which set records in attracting viewers, but most of the the information that this article encompasses is present on the series' list of episodes and everything else is just trivia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine1191 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The author of this article has a record for creating bad articles. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 18:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:NTV. -The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Line of succession to the former throne of Jodhpur (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 kingdom has been defunct since 1949. This completely unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the princely state itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6 . Nika2020 (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Needs proper rewrite to meet standards. Jokejust1000 (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No RS support for this list of multiple living people. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Waldeck and Pyrmont[edit]

Line of succession to the former throne of Waldeck and Pyrmont (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 (semi-independent) principality has been defunct since 1918. This roughly unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Line of succession is also available in parent article Principality of Waldeck and Pyrmont. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the Principality itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6 . Nika2020 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Detailed, unsourced, hypothetical succession lines that are 90% non-notable living people belong on royalty and genealogy forums, not in an encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Line of succession to the former throne of Idar (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 kingdom has been defunct since 1949. This completely unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the princely state itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6 . Nika2020 (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing to support giving the full names and birthdates of non-notable living people. JoelleJay (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all of the reasons above. Futurist110 (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Po Sam Yuk Secondary School[edit]

Tai Po Sam Yuk Secondary 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)

There doesn't seem to anything notable about this school. All of the references in the article except for one are primary and nothing that would establish the schools notability comes up in a search about it. Plus, the creator and main editor of the article clearly has a COI. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here are sources I found that discuss the subject:
  1. "大埔三育中學" (PDF). Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2009-03-20. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
  2. Poon, Shuk Wah (2008). "大埔教育:從鄉村師範的建立到鄉村學校的消失" [Education in Tai Po: From the Founding of Rural Normal School to the Demise of Village Schools] (in Chinese). Lingnan University. p. 217. Archived from the original on 2018-11-02. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
  3. "34%直資中學加費 匯知最勁貴四成". Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2014-04-29. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
  4. CK LI (2020-05-12). Sheun, Martin (ed.). "【家長難捱】22所直資校疫市申加費　大埔三育加幅達18.6%". Orange News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
  5. "三育中學轉直資校". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2005-12-03. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
  There is sufficient coverage in these sources about the school's history and activities to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: You should know by now since you've been told multiple times by pretty much everyone that primary sources don't work for notability. Which all but of one of those are. And the last source doesn't even exist to figure out if it is or not. At this point it's extremely wrong of you to continuing posting sources you know full well don't pass WP:GNG and to vote keep based on them. Especially when you have been told repeatedly to stop doing it. Either post sources that actually work for notability or don't post at all, but what your doing is getting pretty tiring and you should stop doing it. Otherwise, I'm going to report you to the admin noticeboard. If you want articles to be kept, get them kept the correct way. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these sources are primary sources but am open to striking sources from the list if it is demonstrated that any of them are primary sources. If you think that this AfD contribution is disruptive, I recommend that you post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to receive input from the community about whether they agree.

Cunard (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source comes from ktsps.edu.hk/ which is either their website which would be primary or one closely associated with them and is therefore WP:OR, The second one is an academic paper and therefore definitely WP:OR, and the third isn't even about them and they are only mentioned briefly in passing. Same goes for the forth one, and like Whereas, the fifth is from their own newsletter so 100% it's primary. Also, the topics covered in the sources are extremely trivial anyway. All schools have tuition hikes and there's nothing notable about it. Which is why there's no non-primary sources covering it. You really should have checked the sources yourself. As I've said before, it's not on other AfD participants to vet your sources. I'm not going to report you if your willing to correct yourself and stop doing it, but it's been a repeated thing. It's not difficult to review sources before you post them to make sure they are usable. So do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the sources before posting them and stand by my posting of them. The first source is a copy of a Ming Pao article. The second source is from an academic paper. Wikipedia:No original research says Wikipedia editors may not perform original research. Wikipedia:No original research does not say that Wikipedia editors cannot use reliable sources that perform the original research. The third and fourth sources each provide a paragraph of coverage that explains why the school increased tuition by such a large amount. These two sources help with Wikipedia:Verifiability more than they help with Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The fifth source is independent coverage in Apple Daily.

Cunard (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you would. I didn't expect you to follow through on doing the proper thing. Anyway, original research in Wikipedia isn't just confined to editors. It also covers things like academic research papers and autobiographies. That's why the whole secondary source things exists in the first place and also why WP:PRIMARY, which is in Wikipedia:No original research, says "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." The same goes for anything else written for academic purposes. Since they are original research and not a secondary synthesis of the data. Which is what the notability guidelines requires. Importantly, while primary sources are fine for adding basic information to articles, they are don't work for establishing notability. Just like it's OK to cite a tweet with basic information in an article, but it's not OK to use one as a source in an AfD. What can be in an article and what establish notability are two different standards. Also, if the last two sources just help with verifiability then they should be left out. Since that isn't what we are trying to establish here. Two trivial non-reliable sources verifying each other are still two trivial non-reliable sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for exactly what I was talking about see WP:FORUM. "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion." --Adamant1 (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "your results" and "your work" referenced in WP:FORUM refers to the work of Wikipedia editors. It does not refer to the research of someone like Shuk Wah Poon, the author of the Lingnan University-published book chapter.

WP:FORUM mentions "other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications". "Other venues" include Shuk Wah Poon's Lingnan University-published book chapter. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mine and other peoples that why it says "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc." And the talks about someone posting their own research. Original ideas are still original research if they are mine or not. I can't post my friends thoughts on an idea anymore then I can my own. Or visa versa by having them post my original ideas just because they aren't me. That's why you need it to be published in secondary reliable sources in the first place. Otherwise, there would be zero reason reason for it and people could generate their notability by hiring PR firms to write about them and crap. A PR piece isn't "the person", but it's still not reliable because it's original research. Lingnan University-published book chapter isn't "Other venues" because it's the college he was attending and it was published through them as part of him writing it. Generally, "other venues" do not include the place you attend who has a vested interested in and publishes your work. Like if if I attend Standford, while a PhD thesis while going there, and they publish it, that's not "other venues" and it is exactly what the article is doing. Otherwise, it would have to be in a third party peer reviewed journal or something.

Also, WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." And also "dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." So, you'd have to prove that 1. Lingnan University is a well-regarded press and that what they publish is vetted first 2. Show that the specific book or article has had significant scholarly influence. Neither of which you can do and still wouldn't get around the original research thing anyway even if you could. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some source listed above are clearly not primary source (some are newspaper but for "routine" coverage of school fee and change from one government subsidy scheme to another ("直接資助")). Is it in-depth source is another thing. While secondary school latest criteria is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. I would suggest to create a list of secondary school in Tai Po District instead as number of secondary school in the district are relatively static. Matthew hk (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are not enough secondary sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 29 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) 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's Portsmouth Rally (July 2020)[edit]

Donald Trump's Portsmouth Rally (July 2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

After reading WP:EVENTCRITERIA, I don't think individual rallies or campaign events (by any candidate) merit their own article. The information can be included in Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign instead. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. There need not be a page for a rally that has not occurred. KidAd (💬💬)
• Delete Event never held, there's nothing to go over. Nate • (chatter) 21:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Nika2020 (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Event never even held, and every individual campaign rally is not automatically notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The mind boggles, really, and that's irrespectively of politics. Next up, an article pehaps about Biden's 2021 birthday party. -The Gnome (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mainstream Top 40 top 10 singles in 2017[edit]

List of Mainstream Top 40 top 10 singles in 2017 (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)

They don't meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Previous AfD was no consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard Mainstream Top 40 top 10 singles) and had limited participation.

Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tagged each of the nominated articles and added the 2018-2020 lists to the nomination as well. To bundle, the instructions can be found at WP:MULTIAFD. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete do not pass the notability guidelines for lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. As per previous AfD's top ten singles on any particular chart are not notable unlike #1's aer. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and commentary above. -The Gnome (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom Spiderone 18:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is wide agreement that this is an appropriate topic for the encyclopedia regardless of the present state of the article. The suggestion of renaming the page can be followed up on the article talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mental disorders in film[edit]

Mental disorders in 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)

Notability is in no way established through either a summary nor reliable sources. This article has numerous issues with a lack of reliable sources, formatting issues throughout, many incorrect links, etc. It's an overall mess. Factfanatic1 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons stated above. Factfanatic1 (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, the page is in miserable shape, but that's not a reason to delete. WP:SOFIXIT. Lack of notability of the subject would be reason to delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A list of mental disorders in film seems as appropriate as many other lists currently existing on Wikipedia. As noted at the inauguration of this list in 2008, "A striking feature of the overwhelming majority of fictional (as distinct from documentary) film presentations of psychiatric disorders is the gross distortion of the phenomena ostensibly portrayed." As my own contribution to making this list more reliable, I have corrected nosological (diagnostic) names for psychiatric disorders listed and, as appropriate, have moved specific films to more appropriate diagnoses or – when aware of a film's speciousness – have deleted such films. Nihil novi (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a notable concept and I think worthy of having a list. Poor quality and not sourcing isn't a reason to delete an article. WP:NOTFINISHED (essay). --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Of the top of my head there's bound to be plenty to say about Psycho; Gas Light; One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest; Rain Man and many more. Articles are expected to be imperfect and AfD is not cleanup. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Blatantly notable topic, yes the article is in poor shape but that is no reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It will take me a bit of time to read thru all that has been posted about possibly deleting this page, and the rules/guidelines for posting, so for now, I'd just like to say that I specifically searched for exactly this page this afternoon, so I hope it does not get deleted! My adult child has several mental health disorders, diagnosed early in childhood, and now at age 27 received a diagnosis of ASD. So, I am doing lots of reading and watching the two films that I was aware of. That's why I searched for this page. I've self-tested and had an LCSW type test me, so I'm certain that I am also an Asperger's type, and it explains a lot about me. I was only aware of the Temple Grandin and Rain Man films, so I am looking to see what else might exist. The content is definitely valuable and appropriate, so maybe there are other types of changes needed. I will try to get back here and spend some time reviewing, but the difficulties I have as a full time caregiver, and the collapsing I continually go thru make it hard for me to be very productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRaine Mae (talk • contribs) 21:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:LISTN, article includes references (books) that discuss this grouping. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP A valid list article. Rename it List of mental disorders in film. Dream Focus 14:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Retitling the article to "List of mental disorders in film" seems an excellent idea. That could leave the current title, "Mental disorders in film", available for a new article discussing aspects of such films that are not discussed in this list (some were discussed originally in 2008 and much later). Nihil novi (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename List of mental disorders in film per Muboshgu's rationale and Dream Focus's suggestion. Sock (tock talk) 01:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to List of mental disorders in film per above suggestions.   // Timothy :: talk  14:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With an article this poor, the WP:TNT argument is quite persuasive. There is consensus here that if this article is to exist, it needs to be rewritten entirely. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ozon.ru[edit]

Ozon.ru (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 fails WP:PROMO. It is also fails WP:COMPANY, with almost all the sources being unacceptable primary source dependant coverage such as press releases. Even if it is considered notable enough, most of the content is fundamentally flawed, failing any semblance of WP:MOS and using WP:PEACOCK. A complete reqrite would be required to bring the article in line with Wikipedia standards. Melmann 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Melmann 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: You beat me to it (though I was procrastinating quite a lot)! What notable content there is should be moved to Rakuten. I sent Melnakxc a message as I'm sure he/she has somthing to say.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 18:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep, nomination is without merit. The nom failed miserably in due diligence. One does not have to work hard to find independent sources, sufficient to open ruwiki article. Ozon is Russia's local equivalent of Amazon.com. And the suggestion to merge to rakuten is totally brainless. Press releases , while insufficient for establishing notability, are sources of facts. Wp:promo is matter of cleanup, not deletion. - Altenmann >talk 22:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite The company is quite notable, but it needs to use prose in its history section. I need to take a break from this sort of POV pushing.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 14:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: improve, could be useful, currently it reads like PR --Devokewater @ 10:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the references are to primary, otherwise un-reliable sources, or trivial. If this was really the Russian version of Amazon, there would be enough in-depth reliable secondary sources to establish it's notability and pass WP:NCORP, but there doesn't seem to be. Rewriting the article isn't going to change that either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Blow it up and start over. The text is such a horrid mess of blatant promotion, arbitrary assertions, and grandiose citings without merit that any effort to mend & cure would be fruitless. If the subject is indeed worthy of having an article here, someone better start working up a draft. -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tried to clean up, however my edits were reversed. this article needs cleaned of all PR, POV etc --Devokewater @ 10:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draft, this article needs rewritten with reliable sources. --Devokewater @10:21, 27 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 Goulburn Valley Football Association. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goulburn Valley Second Eighteens Football Association[edit]

Goulburn Valley Second Eighteens Football Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks significant coverage about the Football Association itself needed to meet WP:GNG DannyS712 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create

• Redirect to Goulburn Valley Football Association (which is the competition that succeeded this one). I've incorporated anything that could be salvaged in the other page. Deus et lex (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Parsons[edit]

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

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

NN actor/comedian, fails the GNG and NACTOR going away. His acting credits are extra parts along the lines of "Punk," "Trucker #2," "TV Store Customer," "Liquor Store Clerk" and "Security Guard." No significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability tagged for over a decade. Ravenswing 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete articles on living people need realible sources, all this article has is the totally and completely non-notable IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable --Devokewater  (^{🦉 talk} _talk🦉) 19:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Edguy#Discography. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Minded[edit]

Evil Minded (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 demo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first demo album by Edguy. I have seen that this article had an AfD back in 2010 and the result was delete because demos are not notable for WP and no reliable sources are available. The article was then re-created in 2012, it also has a notability tag since that year. Still no reliable sources, only the same old, standard unreliable sites like databases, download sites, lyrics sites, blogs, Youtube videos and forums. If there is a review, they are featured on unreliable sites like Metal Archives, Metal Music Archives and Rate Your Music. No reliable sources whatsoever. I have also nominated their second demo, Children of Steel which suffers from the same problems. Like I said at that demo's AfD, Edguy is a notable band but not everything they release is notable (that goes to any band btw). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Edguy#Discography, looks more like a database entry than an actual encyclopedic article, not to mention that the only source is unreliable. Btw, both demos could have been jointly nominated, since the reasoning is the same and the topics are closely connected. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 21:21, 26 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) 20:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi S. Kumar[edit]

Rishi S. Kumar (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 seems in any way notable for a big hairstyle, this gentleman is not notable. References are TV style listings, and an interview. This is pure promotional cruft, and UPE Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable --Devokewater 17:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. Nika2020 (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThAFF[edit]

ThAFF (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 job hunting project by a government. scope_creep^Talk 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since nothing is out there on our subject indicating a level of independent notability high enough for a Wikipedia article about it. This is about a program unertaken by a German state agency and we do not even have an article in Wikipedia in which we could merge this! The fact that the text has been created and curated by a kamikaze account never helps. -The Gnome (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vidhya Vinod[edit]

Vidhya Vinod (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 business exec, with references that in one case refuse to open. One is a directory listing, one an interview.

A piece of poorly crafted UPE Fiddle Faddle 17:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable, PR. --Devokewater @ 00:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doe not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, etc, but I've seen worse. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Edguy#Discography. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Steel (album)[edit]

Children of Steel (album) (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 demo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A demo album by Edguy. I think it is not notable. I couldn't find anything besides download sites, blogs, lyrics sites, Youtube videos and databases. No evidence of notability. The article is sourced to the unreliable Metal Archives only. That is never a good sign either. The page also has a notability and an improve references tag since 2013. Non-notable release. Edguy is a notable band but not everything they release is notable. (That goes to any band by the way, not just Edguy.) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted. I did not find any notable source.Ahmetlii (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I suggested for Evil Minded, redirect to Edguy#Discography since it looks more like a database entry than an actual encyclopedic article, not to mention that the only source is unreliable. And like I also said in the other nomination page, both demos could have been jointly nominated, since the reasoning is the same and the topics are closely connected. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 21:24, 26 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Utsavam[edit]

Comedy Utsavam (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 set of TV listings do not make a TV show notable, They make it present. The references are all TV mag listings. They say who is on, when it is on, but nothing in them shows any notability/

This is also a piece of UPE Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater @ 00:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:TVSHOW. -The Gnome (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk (t 愛 c) 08:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twentyfour News[edit]

Twentyfour News (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 references do not bear out any notability, Fails WP:CORP, and is very poor UPE (can there be good UPE?).

Reference analysis shows one from the channel itself, one 404 error, and otherwise interviews with the principals Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-01 ✗ R2

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. T. Canens (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mithilaj Abdul[edit]

Mithilaj Abdul (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 references are 404 errors in two cases, passing mentions in others. One is an interview in reported speech. I have not attempted the non English Language reference

UPE and fails all notability criteria Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable person involved in the creation of television programs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 29 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) 20:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop John[edit]

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

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

I have checked all the references except the non English language one. I see passing mentions or, worse, zero mentions.

I cannot see how the gentleman who is doubtless good at his trade, is different from any other plying his trade. I think he fails on any of our notability criteria

I cannot disregard the UPE here Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Devokewater @ 00:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable TV producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, and WP:BLP. -Hatchens (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dumas (economist)[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of an economist and journalist, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for either role. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they're technically verifiable as existing -- the notability test is the amount of media coverage the person has or hasn't received about their work to externally establish its significance. But this article is referenced entirely to primary sources, such as directory entries and his profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and his own company's self-published press releases about itself, which are not support for notability at all. Since his career stretches back to the 1960s, any prospect of salvaging this with better references would almost certainly require digging into archived British media coverage I don't personally have access to, so I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find the correct kind of referencing to establish his notability -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I have added more sources that I believe to not be primary ones. Please could you let me know if they improve the validity of the page? If not, please could you explain further how I can ensure that this page is not deleted as this is an individual who is very well known in their field and the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahtsl (talk • contribs) 09:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have checked many of the references and find them to be unhelpful in an assertion and verification of the gentleman's notability. Hannahtsl asks for guidance. I have given that on the article's talk page. The gentleman has had a decent career. So did I. He is well known in his field. So was I. He has written a book. So have I. But no-one would consider me worthy of an article here because there is nothing showing notability. Nor does he have that. Prove me wrong, ping me, and I will change my mind. Not about me, but about him. I know I'm not notable. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that Hannahtsl appears likely to be employed by T S Lombard (0.95 probability based upon the suffix tsl). Charles Dumas is an employee of that organisation. I have noted the COI with a warning on their user page against WP:UPE to which we are awaiting a response, and a COI banner on the article. I hope very much that this turns into a formal declaration of paid editing or a credible denial Fiddle Faddle 22:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A declaration has been made in discussions on the editor's talk page and directly in their user page, and this now meets our needs Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Almost all sources cited or found are about the firm our subject's working in or about other issues, and not about him per se: We have a Financial Times article about TS & LSR merging; a New York Times citation that's supposed to impress us but is actually about recession returning to Europe, a text in which Dumas is name-dropped exactly once; an article in Spanish that appeared in Aporrea and is about "Perspectivas de la economía mundial en 2011", which we do not really need to translate in English and in which Dumas is name-dropped also once; and so on. Then, lots of listings (e.g. here or here) of our subject's own writings. (In this conference schedule, which, as a simple list of participants, would not be a significant proof of notability in any case, he is not even mentioned.) This is an effort made by an editor whose contributions so far have been about our subject or TSL, and in a blatantly promotional manner too, which never helps, whether there's a fee involved or not. -The Gnome (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial secure mobile companies[edit]

List of commercial secure mobile companies (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)

Unnecessary list, most of the items on the list are red links as of now - showing that the list is not notable. The title is also vague with no explanation of what a 'commercial secure' mobile company is. I presume.a 'commercial secure' mobile company is one which is secure against hacking? But has no definition.   Kadzi   (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the references are to vice.com, which AFAIK isn't properly WP:RS — thereby defo failing WP:1R, probably also WP:V and hence WP:GNG. Also, the article scope is poorly defined and contexted, resulting in at best a partial list, not to mention being confusing as per nom. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I take "commercial" secure to mean "commercially available"; not just an open-source project. Secure communications generally means secure from eavesdropping, like httpS. There are plenty of references which talk about companies which produce these types of products, many references in the Encrochat article and otherwise findable. Krebsonsecurity often talks about these. Do we have a list of secure communication apps like Apple's iChat or Whatsapp? ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as majority of the list entries are red-linked and non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. qedk (t 愛 c) 08:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Rathee Taneja[edit]

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

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

Subject clearly fails WP:GNG, not notable. Most of the refs are interviews (some clearly PR thing), failing the need for the sources to be independent. Zoodino (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; I thought about nominating as well but I wasn't too sure. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 17:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, All references are in favor of the article. When the article was created, the administrator himself removed the Speedy deletion notice from the article - stating that the references were in favor. Edit History Mr. Wiki Indian (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mr. Wiki Indian:, Can you elaborate what do you mean by "All references are in favor of the article", because just having some links as references is not sufficient, the sources need to reliable and independent and should have significant coverage of the subject. (in this case, some of the reference source may be reliable but most of them are interviews and PR articles which can't be considered independent) Zoodino (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this account is a sock of LowSlo, I've reported and awaiting admin intervention here

• Delete Lack of reliable references that are independent of the subject. fails WP:GNG. DMySon 07:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above (ignoring the sock vote) Spiderone 14:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Information shared on page is without any proper source and can misguide people Good123321 (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC) (Comment moved here from outside the AfD template by Vanamonde93, as it was breaking the syntax. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Orb Collector[edit]

Super Orb Collector (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 references/sources, web search shows this is a flash game on a maths website, with absolutely no media sources or mention in any article ever.   Kadzi   (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for so many reasons, (including but not limited to, lack of sourcing, COI, images for text!) but clearly not notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly non-notable with no significant indepth coverage from reliable secondary coverage. -- ferret (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anemic page with no sources. Fails WP:GNG. KidAd (💬💬) 21:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. Nika2020 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per other comments. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 00:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. --Devokewater  (^{🦉 talk} _talk🦉) 19:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is simply nothing in the article to even start thinking about a defense. No context, no wikilinks, no information about the subject, no refs, no cats. I'm seen more meat on fossils. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MICRO (organization)[edit]

MICRO (organization) (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 page possibly doesn't meet WP:ORG, furthermore, it was moved from AFC pipeline to mainspace suddenly by a fishy account. High chance of paid editing. Opinions for discussion are invited. ChayanSen (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — ChayanSen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, adequate sourcing in the article indicates meets WP:GNG PainProf (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, marginally notable per the in-depth profiles in the Washington Post and Smithsonian Magazine cited in the article, plus others found with a quick Google search including NPR's Science Friday. ----Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 01:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable organization, passes GNG. DMySon 07:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since there are enough reliable sources supporting our subject's independent notability. The text, however, is in dire need of a major re-write since it now stands more like a pushy brochure rather than a proper lemma. It's right there near the minefield of destruction & resurrection. -The Gnome (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Black[edit]

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

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

NN record producer, fails the GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. While I agree that “Midnight Black” is a tough search parameter, no reliable sources satisfying the GNG beyond namedrops were found. Notability tagged for over a decade. Created by a SPA with no other Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to being a notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete i couldn't find anything other than his photos. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 18:32, 30 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 Martini (cocktail)#Variations. [ Insert ironic comment about being neither shaken nor stirred by this subject ] Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of martini variations[edit]

List of martini variations (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)

Completely unreferenced article (except for two incidental citations of specific martini variants), fails WP:VERIFY; possibly also WP:ORIGINAL. Fundamentally, the article is trying to do an impossible thing, to create a comprehensive taxonomy of drinks that may or may not be variations of a martini, either in name or nature; at best it is always going to be only a partial list, and almost inevitably include things that shouldn't be there. The article has been around for many years and gone through different incarnations, each with their problems, and I think it's finally time to put it out of its misery. Any genuinely worthwhile content can be merged into the main martini article. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are numerous books written entirely about martini cocktails and these naturally list lots of variations. Examples include: The Little Black Book of Martinis; Martini Book: 201 Ways to Mix the Perfect American Cocktail; The Martini Field Guide; 101 Martinis; &c. Finding references is therefore not a problem. See WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:SOFIXIT; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial merge Per nom, anything worth keeping can go at martini, a short article that can certainly incorporate the sources above! Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Writing a well-referenced article is definitely possible per Andrew's sources, and the current content is not so hopelessly bad that it needs WP:TNT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources are recipe collections, not necessarily substantive content. Wikipedia is not a cookbook cataloguing 200 ways to mix drinks, nor is anything keeping these sources from being used in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 23:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect into Martini_(cocktail)#Variations, where there's already a section, with much of the same verbatim text, much better sourced than this. Nom is correct, some of the previous versions were much more convincing in content and format, and arguably worth rescue. Unfortunately none of that was ever sourced. The existing taxonomy is wrongheaded unsourced OR and not worth merging. --Lockley (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Lockley. As was stated, no merge is necessary; the information's already there, and well sourced. (And that being said, at the fourteen year mark, we have a reasonable expectation that an article will either be sourced or -- as per WP:V, "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." This AfD has been going on for a week now, and no one has seen fit to do the simple sourcing that has been claimed is easily done.) Ravenswing 22:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Media Group[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The references do not seem to establish the notability of the company rather they discuss WP:BLP1E of Aftab Iqbal. Its presented more like of an WP:PROMOTION of the company. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion: References have been added and improved. Empire AS ^Talk! 06:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment:, www.pakpedia.pk, www.advertiseinpakistan.com are unreliable sources. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: These two above unreliable sources will be taken out and replaced by tomorrow. The article needs a cleanup which I'll try to do. Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Indus Media Group is a major satellite TV channel provider in Pakistan and runs 3 different TV channels. So it's a notable news media company. Problems with the article can be fixed. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unrelated content and references removed today. Replaced with 3 newspaper references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article looks notable to me per [6] and [7]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Remove the promotional material and make it more compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. -Hatchens (talk) 05:58, 30 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) 14:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Slovak origin[edit]

List of English words of Slovak origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NN list, fails LISTN and assuredly the GNG. This threadbare "list" (of all of three words) purports to list "English words" of Slovak origin. Of the three, one is the conglomerate name of a sub-subsidiary guitar maker, one is of a Slovakian musical instrument listed in a dictionary of musical instruments, and the third is cited to a Slovakian source. In all three cases I would strongly dispute they are seen as "English" words at all, and certainly there are no sources claiming that they are. Notability tagged for over ten years.

Deprodded with the unhelpful explanation of “How does WP:NLIST feel about List of English words of Slovak origin?” I’m not sure what the guideline itself would think about it, were it sentient, but perhaps live editors will have their own notions. Ravenswing 13:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 13:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For what it's worth, the Oxford English Dictionary Online attributes the word "dobro" to Czech origin (specifically, "< the name of its Czech-U.S. inventors, the Do(pěra Bro(thers; the coincidence with Czech dobro (the) good, a good thing, may also help to explain the choice of this form") and doesn't list "fujara" or "čačky" as English words at all. I would need better sources to believe that these words are (a) English words and (b) of Slovak origin. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think that we do have an English word that corresponds to "čačky", namely, tchotchke. But Merriam-Webster says "tchotchke" came to English from Yiddiah, derived from the obsolete Polish czaczko (and apparently other Slavic languages have similar words), so I don't think we can necessarily give the Slovak language credit for this word. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sorry for being terse/cheeky in my deprod rationale. I'm refering to this WP:LISTN bit: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y"). List notability is not easily gaugued so these are not good prod candidates. Especially so here because of the existence of many other English words of x origin articles. If you are making a WP:TNT argument, that is also not a good use of prod. ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: I very rarely make TNT arguments, and it certainly would not have been appropriate here; the article is neither incomprehensibly written nor flooded with adspam. But my issue is this: whether NN lists make good prod candidates generally is not, and should not have been, the point. At every step of the prod/AfD process, we don't deal with broad categories. We deal with individual articles. Is this list notable? is the only question we should be -- and are -- dealing with. It took me just a few minutes to determine that it was not. I don't think I'm out of line to expect the same level of care in a deprod. Ravenswing 16:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been deprodding where I believe the article shouldn't be deleted or where I would expect some controversy if the deletion were done at AfD. This deprod fell into the latter category for me and I hope I've sufficiently explained why. ~Kvng (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Can't believe we have this article here for so many years.--Darwinek (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I prodded this, which was rejected. Agree with nom, little evidence for entries and definitely not a notable topic. Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turiya Hanover[edit]

Turiya Hanover (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 member of former royal family which was deposed some time ago. The previous nomination in 2013 did not generate significant disussion. PatGallacher (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no demonstration of notability for jug ears cousin. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the other comment above.Smeat75 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't help myself and had to remove the deprecated source and blogs (all BLP violations). The remaining refs are an article on her husband's death and a link to her self-published "guided meditations". Not notable. JoelleJay (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete she was born 82 years after the family she married into was deposed from power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Star (Pakistan)[edit]

The Star (Pakistan) (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 is not notable not passing WP:GNG no reference found in Google, not passing newspaper or news organization notability Memon KutianaWala (talk) 13:11, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per this, this, and this. If I'm reading right: originally called the The Star of India, then changed to The Star after Partition, and operated in Karachi until 2005. Might meet WP:NPERIODICAL; otherwise, meets WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 00:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NPERIODICAL and the above. Cheers! -- puddleglum^2.0 00:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article already has plenty of reliable Book and Journal references – 15 of them. User:AleatoryPonderings already found 3 additional GoogleBooks references as shown above. Meets both WP:NPERIODICAL and WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:54, 27 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) 14:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metalheads (film)[edit]

Metalheads (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 with no indication found during search that this film was ever completed or released, let alone reviewed. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no sign that this was ever made. This article from 2015 says that a Kickstarter was launched to create a trailer (that looks to have been created per this tweet) but there's no evidence to show that the film was made. Even if filming had begun for the feature film (as opposed to just the trailer) I don't think that the coverage is heavy enough to really justify it passing NFF. It sounds like it'd be fun to watch if it does get made, but it just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NFF, the sources I can find relate to plans to make the film, not to a completed film. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:36, 29 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) 14:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adelson, Testan, Brundo & Jimenez[edit]

Adelson, Testan, Brundo & Jimenez (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 is a semi-procedural nomination. I don't like speedy deleting articles that have sat around for 7 years; if nothing else, it means NPP have reviewed and checked it originally without intending to do so. Nevertheless, I can't find any obvious coverage that would allow me to improve this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did requested the speedy deletion as there no indication of importance in the article for the organization, and I believe my statement still applies. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater 17:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, borderline speedy, as nothing in this article indicates that it is anything more than an average law firm in its space. BD2412 T 18:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom . Nika2020 (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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