< 30 July	1 August >

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of proposed cities for American football minor leagues[edit]

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

Pure original research. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Even though there are several reliable sources in the article, and the creator obviously put a lot of effort into it, we're still talking about a list of minor league football teams that might exist someday. We can make articles for each of them if and when they become a thing. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to delete - Although it's easy to think the article is WP:CRYSTAL most of it feature past attempts for minor league teams. The article is categorizing the list by unofficial hierarchy that are derivative mostly from academic research about the markets and feature reliable sources. It's not different from an article about proposed attempts to build a sports stadium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanleyKey (talk • contribs) 01:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:LISTN (no sources found showing that the topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources") and WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources). Nominator's concerns with WP:OR also appear to be well-taken. Cbl62 (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here's my problem with it... "I propose that Kackley, Kansas should be the home of the next *FL team." Now, based on the article title and criteria, we need to include this wide spot in the road (no offense to the handful of fine people who live in or near Kackley). It's just too broad of a list. I believe this is beyond just an "editing" issue and the encyclopedia will be better off removing this article. Enthusiastic editors should start over with a more refined definition and inclusion criteria or not have the article at all. Personally, I found the subject and detail interesting, but "I like it" is not a measure for notability. There seems to be a good number of sources for individual entries in the list so it's been "discussed" but I'm not convinced that this broad of a topic and this large of a list is in alignment with the article and the broad potential inclusion. Many such "proposals" could be considered an "and finally" type article or just a passing mention. I guess I'm landing on ignore all rules because deletion would make Wikipedia better. Perhaps editors should try another wiki such as an online sports almanac, fan blog, or other forum.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Essentially a CRYSTAL Case. Also NOT Indiscriminate. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Cbl62. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StanleyKey. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 14:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mountaineers 5 Peak Pin[edit]

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

11 year old vintage fancruft. The subject is a pin awarded by a Seattle mountaineering club for climbing several peaks in Washington. The article was threatened with speedy on 23 Dec 2009 but i can't see any sign of the tag actually being placed. Fails WP:GNG etc Zindor (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Zindor (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Balle010 (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there does appear to be some sources out there about it, but as it currently is they all seem to be not reliable and trivial anyway. So, as it currently is this fails WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 14:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Corvin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable character who never achieved any significant coverage even when these movies were relevant. Can't find reliable independent secondary sources to write anything meaningful about him with real-world context. Does not meet the notability guideline. Jontesta (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability, no sources. Balle010 (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without sufficient reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 19:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Peanuts characters. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Jean[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I made a healthy search for sources. This character exists, but doesn't have significant coverage for a stand-alone notable article. There's this book by Charles Schulz, which isn't independent enough to create notability, and even by his own writing, there isn't much to say. Others like this are brief passing mentions that really just recap plot summaries which isn't enough to be an encyclopedic article. Jontesta (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some sub-section within Charlie Brown. She is not independently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Peanuts characters where the character is already mentioned and this is a viable search term that would be helpful for readers. Aoba47 (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as stated above. Balle010 (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With a clear consensus for deletion, it's game over for this article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games by daily active users[edit]

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

This can never be a reliable encyclopedic article. Trying to create a list based on daily rankings means having reliable daily sources. We don't have sources that are accurate to this date, which means that this list is inherently unverifiable. On the other hand, if we did find a reliable third party that was publishing daily user data, we'd essentially be updating this daily as some sort of news page, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Either way, this isn't something we can cover properly. Jontesta (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could never be accurate. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maintenance of this list on even the most rudimentary basis is impossible. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Sources given are based on a single point in time that differs each entry. Unreliable data and requires a lot of maintenance to keep it factually up to date. Ajf773 (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Will never be accurate and hard to update regularly. ARegularWisconsinite ^(talk) 01:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is almost impossible to keep this list up-to-date Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf773. "WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Sources given are based on a single point in time that differs each entry. Unreliable data and requires a lot of maintenance to keep it factually up to date." // Timothy :: talk 14:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not suitable unless a wikidata source or some automated means can be found. Awbfiend (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless possible to automate this article. Balle010 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete even if we put aside WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH; wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no encyclopaedic value behind "which game was played the most yesterday". Keeping the article is not even in question as the article is not encyclopaedic to begin with. We already have "YYYY in video gaming" (2019 in video games). A brief note can be added in such articles, based on third party observations. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). This is impossible to source and maintain in a way that would result in acceptable quality for a Wikipedia article. There's a reason we don't have an article called today's weather. TompaDompa (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 13:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kio dj[edit]

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

Reviewed through NPP. BLP of a DJ and record producer, sources consist of: [1] [2] reprints of the same press release, one in Spanish; IMDB and Wikitubia (WP:UGC); some interviews (WP:INTERVIEW); a playlist he made; and obvious self-written promotional material [3]. Nothing better found through WP:BEFORE. No indication of passing WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. Spicy (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: although the subject is from Colombia, as noted in the article he has lived for several years in Dubai in the UAE. He definitely isn't well known in Colombia – there's an article on him here in Óyeme magazine [4], but this is just a gossip mag and very much a puff/promotional piece, and the magazine isn't Colombian, it's based in Barcelona in Spain. I can't find anything on him in the Colombian media, unsurprisingly – I think it's more likely that the Dubai-based media will have featured him. Richard3120 (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked into this further, delete. This is a purely promotional article and none of the sources provide any in-depth unbiased coverage. El Colombiano newspaper and Caracol TV (one of the country's two terrestrial TV broadcasters) are both reliable sources, but the subject is only mentioned in passing because he happened to be present when his actor friend was attacked. Latido also only mentions the subject once in passing during a biography of Karol G. Khaleej magazine and AV Magazine is the same 60-second, eight-question primary source interview. The International Business Times and FaceDXB articles are blatantly promotional press releases from the subject's management... the FaceDXB article even includes his media contact details for further information at the bottom of the article. The Q'hubo source appears to have been deleted, but I can tell you that this is a lightweight fluffy gossip magazine that makes Hello! magazine look like the New York Times. In short, there isn't a single good source about the subject. Richard3120 (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources and because he's basically a run of the mill DJ. AfD is littered with deletions of DJs and producers. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Prince Philipp of Liechtenstein. There is consensus that there is not enough for a separate article. I took the couple of references on his liaison with Adriana Lima and added them to the article on his father. I didn't see anything else we could use. Haukur (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Wenzeslaus of Liechtenstein[edit]

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

Well, this is cringeworthy. "Something of a society column figure on account of his relationship with Victoria's Secret model Adriana Lima"? Am I wrong in perceiving this as his main claim to notability? The rest of the article is about whom his brothers have married and what his father does for a living. I have found an article centered on him but I am not sure whether that is enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, so I hereby seek your input. Surtsicna (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: What little substance there is here would probably do just fine expanding the article about his father, and if more information comes up to support the present notability of Prince Wenzelaus himself, or if he does something notable in the future, then he can certainly have his own article. Krinn DNZ (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are 3 refs described as "genealogy sources", all 3 being BLP-violating SPS (with one fully deprecated). I'm guessing any of the info showing up in actual RS news is either already on Lima's page or UNDUE. JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 20:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly with partial merge, stretching notability but agree with Krinn DNZ that some information might be merged into the father's article. Awbfiend (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete collatoral members of royal houses are not default notable, especially when they are the royal house of a micro-nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly merge, but very few sources. Balle010 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per krinndnz, WP:SIGCOV, and my standards for nobility. I looked online to verify some of the claims in the article. There have been few full stories in newspapers of record. There have been a few short stories about his dating a model, one in the article already, another that I added, and several stories that briefly list him as an "eligible bachelor". I could find no information about any charitable or business work that he's done. Again, there's broad coverage, but it's very shallow, which is to be blunt, how he sounds. As per my standards, I would leave open the possibility of a redirect to his father's article. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 13:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhai Bahen (1959 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up the plot (which the article lacks) from BFI, a blog, a passing mention, and the usual collection of listings sites and WP scrapes. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable with nothing significant found during search. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 10:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find sources either. Balle010 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to being a basic listing of the soundtrack and the movie not having the in-depth reliable reviews it needs to pass WP:NFILM. Since I could only find review about it that was from a blog. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the redirect's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Mbolela[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, most sources are unreliable, fails WP:GNG Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:59, 31 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 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With a clear consensus for deletion, the cup is empty on this one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cup drink[edit]

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

When I accepted this in 2014 I hoped that it would be improved, was even a 'thing'. It had then, as can be seen, a better than 50% chance of not being deleted. Now we have a non notable dictionary definition flagged for more references everywhere.

Time for it to go. Fiddle Faddle 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an odd case as this is obviously something that exists, and it is "notable" in the sense that most people (at least in North America?) know what it is. But I am utterly unable to find any reliable sources that discuss it. The current sourcing is appallingly poor, just a bunch of shopping links to brands that sell cup drinks, and all of the actual encyclopedic information is unsourced. I would say that it should be merged somewhere, but there are no sources, so that is pointless. I wonder if there is a special term for this in manufacturing and if it might be possible to find some decent sources if one knows the terminology. But I wasn't able to find anything useful by searching for things like "juice cup with foil lid", "foil seal juice cup", etc. So I will have to vote delete, since the article fails WP:V. Spicy (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spicy, They exist in my local supermarket, and I can verify them by walking about, but that is no good to us. Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and not verifiable. I can't find any helpful Ghits for this as a regional thing or any kind of industry term. --Lockley (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 10:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter cobblers! Only 'referenced' by manufacturer or retailer websites (of which, some links now dead). Fails on far too many counts... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not remarkable even from my point of view Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, feels promotional to me. Balle010 (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:EXISTS. It's a thing, an ordinary thing. Just because something exists, does not make it notable. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. Maybe there's scope for someone to write a definitive work on the history of the cup drink, and perhaps such a book would go on to be a best seller. If so, that would be a great source for a Wikipedia article. But in the mean time, no. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JoAnn Giordano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Careless mistake, whoops. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 13:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a faulty nomination, the nominator WikiMacaroons did not check the talk page to see that the article just went through AfD like a week ago, and the conclusion was that it was closed as Keep on July 22, 2020.[5]. Time needs to be given for busy editors to add the collections and sources noted in the AfD. They are a notable artist. Strongly suggest the nominator Withdraw the nomination so as not to waste editors time. The nom obviously did not do a WP:BEFORE search. Netherzone (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Netherzone. Please withdraw the nomination. Curiocurio (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ARTIST, & WP:GNG, article has been improved (thanks Netherzone:)) since nomination to reflect this person's wikinotability. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC) - ps. have removed notability tag from article as giordano is ("how bold of you coola":)). Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, and any nomination with such a terse rationale is immediately suspect. We shouldn't need to guess why nom believes the subject is NN. pburka (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is a flawed nomination as noted above (the OP has not responded to my comment with their rationalle). This article already went through AfD two weeks ago and was closed as Keep, then inexplicably it was nominated again eight days later by WikiMacaroons. The subject of the article passes WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG as her work is included two museum and one art center collections; the Archives of American Art; has had significant coverage in reliable sources, and has exhibited her work internationally. While the article itself needs improvement, that is not a reason for deletion. Suggest that the nominator read WP:BEFORE and WP:DELETE and consider withdrawing the nomination. Netherzone (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whoops, total mental lapse there. Sorry, guys. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 12:30, 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. Per updates to the article, I'm closing as keep. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 01:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Chan[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails Google test and GNG Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 18:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 18:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable bowler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:NSPORTS states that: "An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor". She won a gold medal in a notable competition, the Commonwealth Tenpin Bowling Championships, she won a bronze medal at another notable tournament: Bowling at the 2005 Southeast Asian Games. Her full name is Evelyn Chan Lu Ee, not Evelyn Chan. When doing a WP:BEFORE search for a woman, it's a good idea to research by maiden name, family name and (if available) her married name. Netherzone (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won a gold medal (team), bronze medal (individual) at Commonwealth Tenpin Bowling Championships, an international competition, won title at 36th Singapore International Open(individual) (newly found achievement), won 2 bronze medals (team) at Southeast Asian Games, regional multi-countries games, passes WP:NSPORTS after updates to page. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Netherzone's and Justanothersgwikieditor's reasoning. – robertsky (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is established as she has received significant honors/awards for her work per WP:NSPORTS; gold and bronze medals in notable competitions. Netherzone (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice to recreation as a redirect $Salvio$ 13:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Georg of Hanover[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Georg appears to be a private individual of no interest to the media or any non-genealogy publications. It is not even possible to verify that he goes by the name attributed to him by Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a member of a royal house that was deposed from power more than 80 years before his birth, no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable, only born several years after Germany became a republic. PatGallacher (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previous deletion discussion was swamped with people thinking he was a British prince, due to an old, misleading title. No evidence he is discussed outside of brief mentions in royalty handbooks. JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 10:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly non-notable Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:per nom and the other comments above.Smeat75 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete members of deposed royal houses are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Balle010 (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:SIGCOV, and my own standards. If you look deeply, this nephew of Prince Philip has been covered in various books and documentaries, but mostly in terms of his parents, Princess Sophie of Greece and Denmark and Prince George William of Hanover (born 1915). We should redirect to one of those articles; my preference would be to his mother's article. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Rossiello[edit]

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

notability per WP:GNG not established for founder only covered in reputable media in connection with her company BitPesa, containing little personal information warranting a dedicated article for her Ysangkok (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think the case for notability is that she is a woman in a male dominated industry and thus should probably be kept given that there are sufficient sources already. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: a woman does not become more notable because you happen to think women are under-represented in whatever industry you think she belongs to. There is no such policy, and what makes you think there is? You cannot just pick and choose arbitrary societal trends and demand that Wikipedia must enforce them. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me voting in an AfD doesnt represent a demand. Her notability in the sources (separte from the startup she founded) stems from her gender, we follow sources not my opinion anyhow. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She lacks the in-depth reliable coverage in multiple sources to be notable. Everything currently cited in the article seems to be trivial passing mentions. So, as a topic the article fails WP:GNG and the notability guidelines for biographies. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater@ 11:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maman Machan[edit]

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

Non-notable film for which, there are no reliable sources. Fails WP:Notability. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 19:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single blue link, very unlikely that the film would be notable -- Ab207 (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly non-notable and no blue link. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable --Devokewater @ 11:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep, there is no question that the subject is inherently notable due to their position. BD2412 T 06:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Rosen (justice)[edit]

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

Judge with no real claim to notability. Rathfelder (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep State supreme court justice, so notable per WP:NJUDGE, right? -kyykaarme (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JUDGE criterion 1. Less Unless (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State supreme court justices are default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep state Supreme Court judges are normally kept. This one passes WP:GNG. —Paul McDonald (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable --Devokewater @ 10:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable +1 Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Station1 (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Balle010 (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on his job this isn't even a question. NapalmSunday (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JUDGE and my standards. The consensus is that state supreme court justices are notable per se. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 08:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hideo Sawada[edit]

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

No notability, no sources on him as a person as opposed to his company. Balle010 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No source. The link, the one in the article, is also broken. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:43, 31 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. $Salvio$ 14:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheaterLE[edit]

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

So non-notable it doesn't even have an article on the German Wikipedia - the Wikidata link just goes to de:Leinfelden-Echterdingen#Theater, which is a single-line mention of the theatre, apparently defunct since 2008, and without even a source.

Speaking of sources, I did not locate any sources - even trivial mentions. Although it uses the name "Theatrele", based on context, this source is actually about the Theater der Käsreiter in Holzgerlingen. Searching "TheaterLE" + Leinfelden did not produce any more relevant results. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:29, 31 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) 20:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Bugeme[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. After a before search I could observe that he is a non notable socialite who doesn’t satisfy WP:ENT or WP:GNG. The sources present in the article is blatant hogwash Celestina007 15:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is pure puffery. I can't find what is supposed to make the subject notable. --Kbabej (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: his notable in his society — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy Solomon (talk • contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you can provide to this AFD what & what reliable sources substantiates his notability? Celestina007 22:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete puff. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm closing as keep after sources were found. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 01:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clemente Isnard[edit]

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

Unsourced article that may not meet WP:GNG PenulisHantu (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing in the article demonstrates notability per WP:NBIO and I cannot find any other sources which give him more than a passing mention.~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one source is a blog with directory style articles. This is several levels below what is needed to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:NBISHOP notability guidelines - bishops are presumed to be notable. In fact, there are certain to be Portuguese-language sources offline: in any case, the Portuguese-language article is a good place to start. St Anselm (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep catholic bishops are usually included, will look for sources tomorrow, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far have found significant coverage here, and here, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extra significant coverage here, here, and here, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tried to find specific Notability Guidelines for bishops and came up blank - thank you StAnselm, I've bookmarked WP:NBISHOP for future use. Happy to change my vote. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NBISHOP is not a guideline, but an essay, but the corresponding article in Portuguese [6] seems to establish notablity. // Timothy :: talk 19:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If people think there actually are sources, they should go and find them, not just hand wave and claim they exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been found in this discussion and added to the article, there are more in the Portuguese wikipedia article (although they need fixing) imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:13, 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 speedy keep. The nominator's claim that "sources...can't verify the notability of the article" is disproven with a cursory glance at the sources (that is, those sources support the claims to notability in the article and those claims are reasonable). The claim is sufficiently incorrect that I believe SK3 applies here. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keren Bergman[edit]

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

Sources seems like can't verify the notability of the article. Feloniii (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Feloniii[reply]

Speedy keep Keren Bergman is the Charles Batchelor Professor at Columbia University. Per WP:NPROF she is notable. This is only one of three clearly-notable women whose articles were AfDed today by Feloniii who should not be AfDing articles without a better grasp of Wikipedia policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF and HouseofChange's arguments above. --Kbabej (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per @HouseOfChange. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please first read Reliable Sources, wp:BIO and GNG, the article failed from all of them. From when web profiles are acceptable as a reference?! For example this one, This is very ridiculous. We aren't sure about the correctness of the subject because there isn't enough independent sources. Feloniii (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Feloniii[reply]

::Feloniii Not many professors pass GNG, which is why WP:NPROF is the relevant policy here. Or are you saying that a Columbia University Engineering Dep't faculty page is not a reliable source for whether or not Bergman is the "Charles Batchelor Professor of Electrical Engineering, Columbia University" since 2011? Even WP:SPS can be used as a reference for claims of fact that are not unduly promotional. HouseOfChange (talk)

Keep: The sources are adequate for notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep she's clearly notable as per WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC. Also SKCRIT 3 applies. Praxidicae (talk) 15:25, 31 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the Spider-Slayers[edit]

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

uncited since 2012. Nothing reliable found. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the most obvious redirect target is Spider-Slayer, but no one will need a redirect from this title to find that article. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Airbus. Content may be merged to related articles from the page history at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aérospatiale-Matra[edit]

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

The organisation discussed in this article only briefly (less than a year) traded under this name before rebranding as EADS, since rebranded as Airbus. Not every rebranding exercise mandates an individual article - the very brief amount of info here could just as easily be accommodated in the EADS, Aérospatiale, and Matra articles respectively. A comparison could be drawn with DASA, which does not have separate articles based solely around its short term rebranding exercises either Kyteto (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I agree, just not enough content for its own article, it should just be covered in the other articles.
~~Merge with~~ Redirect to EADS Mako/HEAT. This article is not justifiable and needs to be ~~merged~~ redirected, but there are complications. First, the EADS page is a redirect to Airbus, so the proposal to merge there cannot be delivered - al least, not as things stand. Second, EADS did produce one aircraft project of note, the EADS Mako/HEAT. My suggestion therefore would be to put all the EADS related information in one place; merge this article and much of the Airbus#History section in with the Mako/HEAT article, and update the EADS redirect accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[Update] There turns out to be nothing significant to merge. Turns out that it is covered more fully at History of Airbus, while the Aérospatiale and Matra articles also already cover it. I have added much the same brief account to EADS Mako/HEAT. I don't think anything more need be done beyond making this a redirect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to EADS Mako/HEAT is unbelievably illogical.Mark83 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect this is a notable company --Devokewater @ 15:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aérospatiale. This did not need to be a AfD Mark83 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Aérospatiale is unbelievably illogical. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was unnecessary, however I could have been more constructive by explaining my thoughts: I feel that your argument that the short-lived incarnation of this company only produced one aircraft of note and thus this should be a redirect to the latter does not follow any logical path that a reader will follow or expect. Products will sometimes (for various reasons) be redirects to the company that made them, but company names redirecting to its products will rarely be sensible. Have you looked at what links here? Most, if not all, readers being redirected from a company name to EADS Mako/HEAT are going to be confused. And not my main point, but as an aside are you proposing adding a section to all those pages explaining the evolution of the name? Mark83 (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual with aircraft that, where the company is notable only through a single product, we cover it in the product's article. EADS renamed itself Airbus, which is the current redirect. However that article skims past aspects of EADS, such as its notable aircraft project. This despite the Mako being included in the navbox list of Airbus aircraft. So the confusion is already there in spades. If the Airbus article's treatment of EADS were expanded, I could live with that as the redirect's destination. On the other hand, Aérospatiale was not even a direct parent company, more of a grandparent, and its article rightly has less about EADS than even the Airbus one; it is surely the least logical choice, alongside of Matra. So you can perhaps begin to appreciate that my remark was rather more "necessary" than yours. If you disliked my choice of wording you have only yourself to blame, and that was a point I also felt was necessary to make. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"where the company is notable only through a single product" - well that's not the case here. But redirecting to , and explaining it in, the Airbus article sounds like the answer. Mark83 (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the predecessor and/or successor companies as appropriate. And redirect to the successor company (EADS, which in turn redirects to Airbus). Redirecting from a company to its product may be OK for short-lived companies which only produced one product, but not for short-lived names of companies which went on to produce numerous products under another name. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per sources cited in discussion (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 06:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Bird[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. // Timothy :: talk 13:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the decent-sized bibliography in this entry in an RS (which I've cited in other AfDs in this batch). Will try to track these down later. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, have added a number of reliable sources - enough to easily satisfy WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, searching google-books I see a large number of sources covering this legend and its possible association with the Spot-bellied eagle-owl. Ignoring fringe cryptzoology sources, there are also sources covering folklore ([7]) as well as coverage in bird books ([8][9]). --Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination withdrawn per sources above. // Timothy :: talk 06:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm glad to be able to withdraw this nomination. AleatoryPonderings work convinced me. Since he has done the research I will leave it up to his discretion about the actual article name, but I think the alternative names should have redirects. Thanks AleatoryPonderings for the work on this. // Timothy :: talk 19:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 19:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almas (folklore)[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. // Timothy :: talk 13:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the extensive bibliography in this entry in an RS (I've also cited it in a bunch of the other AfDs in this batch). Meets WP:GNG per those sources. I will try to track down the sources listed there later. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe also move to "Almasty"—seems to be a much more common term for this mythical creature. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:58, 31 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. While there was some support for draftifying this the overall consensus is close as delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kovoko[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. // Timothy :: talk 13:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: "Kovoko" is one of the many alternate names for the "crowing crested cobra", which pops up here. But I don't see much coverage in RS outside this guide, which seems to be the definitive recent work on mythical beasts. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources are all interesting to read, but what matters here is how they relate to establishing topic notability and encyclopedic value.

Pitman, Charles (1934). Not a secondary source WP:GNG, WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Publisher (government printer) does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:REPUTABLE
SHIRCORE, J. O. (1944). Due to the age (fact checking?), content of the article (a collection of hearsay collected by an explorer) and lack of information about the author, I seriously doubt this passes WP:REPUTABLE criteria of WP:RS.
Waller, H (1875). A well known travelogue, but not a secondary source WP:GNG, WP:SCHOLARSHIP. A travelogue from 1875 is a dubious use as a source of encyclopedic notability. I downloaded it from [10] but was unable to find anywhere it addresses the "topic directly and in detail" the whole book is cited, but the whole book is not about Kovoko.
Naish, Darren (November 21, 2011). Very interesting article, but it is a tertiary source commenting on "anecdotes" in secondary sources. I don't think this meets "addresses the topic directly and in detail" in WP:GNG.

The issue here is how they relate to establishing topic notability and encyclopedic value. // Timothy :: talk 19:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think these evaluations are a bit off. The 1944 Shircore paper was published in what appears to be a peer-reviewed journal, so is certainly reputable, although also outdated. And the Naish reference is a secondary source, because the topic of this article at AFD is, in fact, those anecdotes. (The crowing crested cobra doesn't actually exist, so the animal itself can't be the topic; the topic has to be the (presumably incorrect) reports of its existence. A more legitimate criticism is that the Naish article is published on a blog, however it is a Scientific American blog which suggests some editorial oversight. pburka (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue, the reason you couldn't find anything in Waller(1875) is that you used volume I, not II, where Bubu receives a mention. You can find it here: [11]

Some sources cite this as Horace Waller, The Last Journals of David Livingstone (London: John Murray, 1875), vol. 2, p. 344; but the creator of the page has elected to omit these details. I am so fed up that with behavior that I support deleting the whole lot. It is not acceptable to make sources extra difficult to find. Either source something properly or see your work deleted; it isn't up to reviewers to have to dig up sources for lots of little stubs, only to find that those sources, once one takes the effort of reading them, don't support the claims in the article. I have the impression that the that creator got their material from somewhere else and hasn't used the cited sources to base the article on. I've gone through the effort of proving that at Elbst and that should really suffice. The same is true for all their other creations. Delete all of them: Ellengassen, Coje Ya Menia (creature) , Yaquaru (creature), Narrara (creature), Specs (creature), Mithla (creature) Elbst and whatever got draftifed. Vexations (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Vexations you should be chief of detectives for Wikipedia :) I did look in both vols, but didn't find that mention. Pburka Very fair points, I'm seeing them a bit different, but your points are fair.

I could see draftify for this if the consensus is that it could meet WP:N, probably as Crowing Crested Cobra, not Kovoko. It's absolutely in no shape for mainspace, along with all the other pages this creator has started. // Timothy :: talk 21:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to that. I think this topic probably passes WP:GNG, but there's little value in keeping this batch of articles in main space, at least in their current state. If the author wants to develop them further, they need to provide better sourcing, write in an encyclopedic tone consistent with other articles, and combine information from multiple sources to avoid the appearance of WP:COPYVIO. pburka (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support draftifying the batch (except Mithla (creature), which I think is a hoax); I tried to improve some of the other articles in this collection, but a number of my (IMHO) constructive edits have since been reverted. For "kovoko"/"crowing crested cobra", I'd also add this and this the mix. Thanks to @TimothyBlue, Pburka, and Vexations for the thorough combing over of a bibliography that I admittedly glanced at. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has written a statement in support of keeping the article on their talk page in this edit [12]. They are currently blocked (for a week, from August 1), so they cannot respond here. Vexations (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Author request, I am relying the request of the author ([13]) that this be draftified.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

i)Notability WP:N

The Original referrer of the Kovoko (referred as 'Bubu'), Livingstone is a notable person, his book is notable, characters (Chuma and Susi) from the book are notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book and having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N.

ii)Reliability WP:RS

The book has its latest reprint on 2011. These many reprints wouldn't have been there if it wasn't WP:RS. Charles Pitman and SHIRCORE, J. O (other references used) are also notable persons and their works are satisfying WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:REPUTABLE. Furthermore, this book is also used in at least following five mainspace articles of Wikipedia as reference: History of slavery, Arab slave trade, Human tooth sharpening, Kazembe, Chuma and Susi.

iii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE

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

iv) Verifiability WP:V

The references used are available for verification: African Affairs 43 - SHIRCORE, J. O., The last journals of David Livingstone in Central Africa (Vol II) , A report on a faunal survey of Northern Rhodesia

v) Alternative of Deletion

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

vi) Good Faith and New Comer

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

vii) WP:Copyvio

Plagiarism check is accepted norm to detect violation of copyright.

AranyaPathak (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm just seeing enough here coverage or content wise to justify an article on the topic. My suggestion is that someone write a short thing about in a general article on cryptozology or maybe one more specific to snake species. I'm currently at a lose as to where it could go though. So I won't suggest a merge or redirect. I don't think doing either is necessary anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have an unsupported claim that the imaginary creature also goes by other names, and then we have references about some of those names, e.g. here. Where is the connection? Then someone adds "Quotes" that are supposedly about the subject but the text quoted from the sources does not mention our subject even once - by any name. The whole text follows indeed a very low standard of writing an encyclopaedic article, one to which users will turn to be informed. We could save it by improving it but it is about something of extremely weak notability. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JBW (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mithla (creature)[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. // Timothy :: talk 13:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything on this mythical creature, even in fringey sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A purported animal that was supposedly described by a single individual. As mentioned above, there is absolutely no information on this supposed creature at all. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undersourced, fails GNG Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 18:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mithla is sometimes spelled as Mitla, as Fawcett does in Exploration Fawcett and Jeremy Mallinson in Travels in Search of Endangered Species. We had an article on that once already, which was deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Mitla (cryptid). It is perhaps worth noting that Mallinson confers with Heuvelmans, who we describe as "as a founding figure in the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology." There is no mention of any folkore surrounding the mythical creature. It's a cryptid, proposed by Fawcett. Another author who has written about the mitla is Karl Shuker, the cryptozoologist, here. So much for "This page has no connection with a pseudoscience named cryptozoology". Vexations (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. @AleatoryPonderings: and @Vexations: have been diligent in cleaning up this whole "creatures of belief" problem & deserve thanks for their work. --Lockley (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as failing GNG. Some of these other "creatures of belief" should perhaps be sent to draft (as potentially notable subjects, but with the content failing Wikipedia policy in many ways). This particular "creature of belief" does not have article potential.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Author request, I am relying the request of the author ([14]) that this be draftified.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 14:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology, Economy and Society–The INSEE Journal[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded because of a recent edit by article creator, adding a reference to the article being included on a list of the University Grants Commission (India). This list is inclusive (all academic journals published in India that are not overtly predatory) and not at all selective in the sense of NJournals. PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 02:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Adar[edit]

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

The one source here is basically primary in nature. A search for additional sourcing turned up nothing that would add to a pass of the general notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NATH point#2 - "Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic Games and world championships". Finished fifth in the final of the 800m at the 2010 Commonwealth Games. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NATH.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is a multiple national champion and has represented his country at top level international events on several occasions. (NB: I have expanded the article since this nomination was opened). SFB 20:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to SFB's work to highlight Adar's notability. StarM 00:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NATH. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The delete arguments were incredibly weak, and the expansion by Netherzone has not been substantially challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farah Baker[edit]

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

Do not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Alfasst (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She may think she is the modern Ann Frank, but the coverage is not there to provide this inflated view of her own inportance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG
Keep - Has doing a WP:BEFORE search before bringing an article to AfD become passé? She has received SIGCOV in RS: The Daily Telegraph, International Business Times, NBC, CNN, Aljazeera, and has sigcov in a 2016 book (Springer) publishers) Gender and Memory in the Globital Age. I added some of these to the article. Netherzone (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Netherzone - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question for nominator - Alfasst I noticed that you are the creator of the article, and am just wondering why you have decided to nominate it for deletion now? Just curious. Netherzone (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG pass Spiderone 22:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preety Kongana[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. GSS ^💬 12:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The few semi-reliable sources mentioning her are for her receipt of a non notable award. Fails GNG anyways. - hako9 (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress. There are not enough sources to pass GNG and roles do not add to passing the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi, she predominantly works in Assamese Film Industry. She has acted in several TV series, Films and Music albums. Unfortunately, media coverage of Assam related happenings are very limited. Kindly advice to improve this article. This page is a "strong keep" based on her popularity, fan base and huge influence in Assam (a northeastern state of India). Audiences in Assam are huge fan of the show 'Ardhangini' for all its virtues including her strong acting. As Wikipedia is a popular platform, people may want to read about her in particular. That was the intention to create this article. It's very easy to check notability of a person based on some mere media articles; however, that's almost impossible for every cases. Sometimes we need to do field work. Just argued the case in all seriousness. Anyway, you people are "Top Men" here. (Nalbarian (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nalbarian (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG by a long way Spiderone 16:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above all. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:21, 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azmat Khwaja[edit]

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

A non-notable actor with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. GSS ^💬 12:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor who does not meet our very broad inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to meeting GNG Spiderone 14:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC) striking a second !vote from John Pack Lambert. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Angel My Teacher[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬 12:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 17:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable film, directed by a non-notable actor/director.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ENAER Ñamcú. Or perhaps ENAER, as appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-ENAER[edit]

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

This aviation company article has multiple long term issues that looks likely to never be addressed. It neither produced any aircraft, nor ever will, being only active for a few years in preparation to produce the ENAER Ñamcú under license. Any relevant information is already well summarised in the ENAER Ñamcú and ENAER articles; its my opinion that a dedicated article for such a short-lived initiative is excessive and is adequately covered on the two other articles linked Kyteto (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Kyteto (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there's nothing about this company that cannot be covered in the ENAER or Namcú articles - as it was solely concerned with getting the Namcú certified and into production, with no other products, nothing will be lost by merging.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - best solution. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 31 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 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open Platform for Robotic Services[edit]

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

NN product (software?), fails the GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. The handful of mentions in reliable, independent sources are namedrops or press releases. Notability tagged for over a decade. Created by a SPA for whom this was the sole Wikipedia activity, and heavily worked on by several more, including two with names mimicking this project. Ravenswing 03:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 03:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:TNT, and WP:RS. It is so filled with jargon that we don't know what it is, and the lack of reliable sources means we can't click on links for further information. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 11:50, 31 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Busey[edit]

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

Purely a promotional article WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of this article is JoAnn Hayes has also created the similar wiki articles Rachel Goenka and Randy Alcorn which are non-notable by all means. Three big articles with lifetime edit history clocking just 41? Something is not right. -Hatchens (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. We really, really need to start making all articles go through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well the creator here claims she created this page because she lost the password to her last account. It does seem highly suspicious. Keep in mind that all her edits seem to be on creating these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable --Devokewater @ 16:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that several of the sources cited in this article do constitute RS, particularly this one.[15] I would keep this article on a notable businessman.Patiodweller (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just doesn't meet the GNG. Patiodweller's source above is reliable, sure, but it doesn't provide the subject with significant coverage, only discussing the subject in two sentences. That doesn't come close to meeting the GNG, never mind being a particular example of doing so. Ravenswing 06:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Ummat[edit]

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

News Blog is not notable hence the Wikipedia page should be deleted, i don't understand how this page is still active? not passing WP:GNG Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any independent sourcing for verification.Citing (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the subject seems notable to me per [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheBirdsShedTears Mentioning the paper doesn't mean that the paper is notable itself, there are many news website and newspaper are mentioned by the CNN, BBC, Nytimes but they don't have Wikipedia page here. I would like to mention that Daily Ummat Newspaper is not close to taliban, the paper itself was faced charges in Pakistan for airing fake news in past and as of now they are not getting paid by the governments due to their fake claims. see example this blog a Wikipedia page is approved since long, no reference and nothing but it is accepted anyhow by editors and there are many pages available on Wikipedia which is accepted by editors but the article itself isn't notable. The Teenager (Pakistan)

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are discussing here whether the subject should be "kept" or "deleted". Second, if the newspaper has been charged for fake news, one can update the article accordingly, but this does not mean the subject in question fails to meet notability guidelines. As far as i know, it has not been fully updated with reliable sources since 2005. I am also happy with "delete". TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is already well-sourced. Störm (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 11:49, 31 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Famous RAAF Airmen[edit]

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

Mostly WP:PEACOCK, "sourced" to a page on the RAAF website.

I think this function is far better served by Category:Royal Australian Air Force airmen. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 11:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 11:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 11:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have categories for people who served in the Royal Australian Air Force, and lists of particularly prominent RAAF personnel (eg, in articles like Chief of Air Force (Australia), Deputy Chief of Air Force (Australia), Warrant Officer of the Air Force as well as lists like List of World War II aces from Australia) so a central article isn't needed. The content of this article is also pretty random, with it including many people who are notable for reasons other than their RAAF service - for instance, Gough Whitlam's notability is related to his eminent political career and owes almost nothing to his impressive but ultimately not particularly remarkable wartime service with the RAAF. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nick-D. - BilCat (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this just isn't encyclopaedic, also per Nick. The source is probably a promotional page for the upcoming RAAF100 celebrations in 2021. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a list of servicemen who are notable for non-military reasons. That's a jarring juxtaposition of unrelated criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nick-D; criteria for inclusion is too vague to be defining. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick-D. I agree that the criteria for inclusion is too vague. Having spent 22 years in the RAAF, I assumed that "airmen" meant the "other ranks" (AC-WOFF) but the original list includes members of all ranks. That lead me to wonder why prominent figures like WGCDR A. R. Tindal (for whom RAAF Base Tindal is named) and Sir Richard Williams (the "father" of the RAAF) are conspicuously absent. Clearly the source list is incomplete. I personally know former RAAF members who achieved significant awards, such as the OAM, while in service but who are also missing from the list. This sort of list is virtually impossible to maintain and I think a category is a far better way of handling famous or notable RAAFies. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Khan[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, fails both the WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not been involved in anything notable as a director, producer or anything really Spiderone 18:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that WP:MUSICBIO does not apply because he is not a musician, but a fillmaker who sometimes does music videos. Anyway, per the "Creative professionals" guidelines at WP:DIRECTOR, he does not have any reliable coverage indicating that his works are important or influential. He is only ever listed briefly in the credits for the films and videos in which he was involved. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES - music producers and music video directors are rarely notable. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quake Wars: Ray Traced[edit]

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

Like Wolfenstein: Ray Traced (and its AfD, a project that added ray tracing in real-time to a video game. Barely anyting in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. Again I do no think redirecting is a good idea, since the only two mentions are:

a "sponsored feature" at Gamasutra
it is mentioned once in PCGamesN talking about graphic cards ("Hell, it was even able to demonstrate early real-time ray tracing demonstrations at the Intel Developer Forum in late 2009, using a version of Quake Wars.") soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable tech demo that fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no adequate sources to meet the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfenstein: Ray Traced[edit]

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

A project that added ray tracing in real-time to a video game. Barely anyting in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. I thought about redirecting, but the only three mentions are:

a "sponsored feature" at Gamasutra
a mall mention / news piece at BluesNews, that points to Intel's website
Japanese website 4Gamer.net is the only RS that actually says something about it soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable tech demo that fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A clear consensus here, I see no reason to keep it open (non-admin closure) Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Klippenstein[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Not notable Murrell B (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented arguments on the article's talk page, but will copy them over here.

Refuting each citation in accordance w/ Wikipedia:BIO and Wikipedia:BASIC.

This is coverage of a story written by Klippenstein, not coverage of Klippenstein. The MSN article is a tertiary source. Per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Tertiary it is fine to use this source as confirmation that Klippenstein is a genuine Washington correspondent for the National, but it does not meet the standard for indicating notability. This is because it does not provide any research regarding Klippenstein himself, rather his work.
This entry is a database (tertiary source, again) listing Klippenstein's contributions. Again, this list is fine for what it is being used to prove, but it does not constitute notability because it is not "significant coverage" or a secondary source.
The talent page https://tyt.com/about/talent does not even feature Klippenstein, you clearly had to find this source elsewhere. And again, the profile of a minor contributor to a television program does not constitute significant coverage, nor is it to be considered intellectually independent of Klippenstein (he probably provided his own bio).
This is the only source that I would consider to be meeting the standards laid out in Wikipedia:BIO because, it is a relatively significant, and probably independent of Klippenstein.
Again, a citation isn't coverage of the subject.
Two sentence bio. All journalists have these, and they are usually hastily written and not to be considered scholarly sources.
Citation is not coverage of a subject. If this were a profile or interview of Klippenstein about his work, it would maybe scrape past. But it isn't.
This is basically the same as the previous item. Both are tertiary sources.
This is another summary of the same topic as item 1, which is more noteworthy than this one because MSN is (kind of) a national publication. WKSU serves only a small metropolitan area within Ohio.
Borderline, but an article about a twitter beef, in which Klippenstein is the minor party, doesn't scream "significant coverage."

Only one of your citations is reliable and independent of the subject, this does not constitute "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources." Saying "All that is required for subject-specific notability" betrays the fact that "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" is a high standard, let alone " [...] reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," which your citations do not adequately meet. I apologise for the formatting, I have no idea how to indent numbered lists. Murrell B (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your efforts in pointing out these deficiencies in the sources, such deficiencies in the first draft of an article on the very day it's created are not really an argument for the subject to be considered not notable or for the article to be deleted. Let's exercise a level head and give the article time to address these issues. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Keep, with extensive edits. I appreciate Murrell B's work in pointing out the deficiencies in the citations in (apparently) the first draft of this article. It's clear enough that someone isn't taking it very seriously with the old, unlicensed photo that's going to be deleted. Nonetheless, Ken is a prominent journalist with 291,000 followers on Twitter. I'll grab some more acceptable sources and modify this to be more like the pages of other living journalists. Emoprog (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the original author, I did not include the photo of Klippenstein and concur that an explicitly free-for-reuse one should be used instead. I welcome any additional sources to enrich the article and deliver it from stub-status. QRep2020 (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:JOURNALIST. He's widely-enough cited by his peers. Brycehughes (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have a pretty decent amount of sources (most seem weakly reliable but there's good ones in there), I'm imagining the article was much worse when nominated. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 23:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a notable and cited journalist. Improve the page instead of deleting it. North Carolina Man (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's worth disclosing that I was directed to this deletion discussion from Ken's twitter feed. Ken's broken some major news stories for multiple outlets over the years. While it's not the most notable thing in the world, he's attached to many important stories concerning whistleblowers in american government. He's at least notable enough, for The Independent, a major newspaper, to spend an entire op-ed complaining about him. The simple justification of "not notable" provided by the proposal doesn't really address what standards they think he's failing to meet. The secondary sources already cited in the article seem to meet general wiki standards of notability. i kan reed (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brycehughes. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:JOURNALIST, Klippenstein is notable. Beyond his bylines, his work has been cited by a fair few outlets. Irrespective of WP:BIO criteria, I'd argue that Klippenstein, if not yet notable, will inevitably become so as a subject of controversy due to his being a recipient of leaked, potentially classified information. All that said, what prompted the creation of this article was a personal request by the subject.^[1] UPSGof20 (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This looks like a G4, even - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan Grove. T. Canens (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Grove (actor)[edit]

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

Couldn't find any in-depth coverage on him. May not pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Bingobro (Chat) 08:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 08:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 08:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands this is an unsourced article on a living person. Having unsourced information on an article on a living person is against policy, so as it stands every word of this article as it exists now is against policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An article previously existed at the non-parenthetical title and was deleted. Earlier this year, a redirect was created at that same title on this same topic. It's misleading to create such redirects unless there's a possibility that the subject qualifiers for a standalone article. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:56, 31 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ewa Borkowska (speed skater, born 1973)[edit]

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

No evidence that she is notable. She competed in one ISU Speed Skating World Cup event in her own country, finishing at the back of the pack[22][23] in both disciplines. Her namesake is a lot more notable, but makes searching for sources obviously a lot harder (they even competed in the same World Cup, just to make things complicated). Even seemingly good sources confuse the two, compare this[24] with this (14th place at the 3000m)... Fram (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting an obvious typo in nomination-text because linked source for the text says 3000 meter instead of 300 meter which is a totally different distance in this case. Best regards Migrant (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A speed skater who competed at the highest level speed skating international competition where only a limited skaters can compete in. I can list 100s of articles of speed skaters who never made it to the World Cups. In addition she medaled at national championships. She was one of the best Polish speed skaters in that era. Poland was a county with good speed skaters, and was written about in Polish sources. As the competitions were in the pre-internet era; references should be found in Polish newspapers. However; not available online. Also for article of one of the most important Polish women speed skaters Zofia Nehringowa (I wrote recently) who had all world records; the important prose information is from Polish newspapers; by luck Polish Speed Skating published a scan of it: see here. The nominator was confused with other speed skater Ewa Borkowska (speed skater, born 1967). Even with the confuse tag at the top; and with the proper references; he was still confused. As stated, even reliable sources confuse the two speed skaters! Before creating this article I was confused as well. With the creation of this article it becomes more clear there are two international Polish speed skater with the same name. Take in mind we build Wikipedia for the readers. If this article helps the readers and helps with the speed skating knowledge for the world, it’s also of value to keep this article. As they have the same surname, it’s likely they were somehow related to each other. If so; this would be highly likely mentioned in newspapers. Also a note: English speaking countries have never been a real speed skating nation. For that reason even pages about the main championships and competitions have not been created at the English Wikipedia (while created in many other countries). Not all my questions regarding to speed skaters are answered at NSPORT. So with such a short Delete statements above; I assume this are people who don’t know anything regarding to speed skating. Luckily deletion is about reasoning; not counting. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She won no international competitions and set no records. She is not notable. We don't have articles on everyone who has ever competed ibn one or two competitions. As for the short statements, the nomination says all that needs to be said. There is no need to repeat it. Per nom says what it means. Lard Almighty (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To clear things up a bit I tried to ask around with some speed skating knowledgeable people at a facebook-group I'm in with Melanie Symalla (Symallas connection with Speedskatingnews.info and she is also an international speed skating referee at international championsship level for International Skating Union) and others, and they confirmed that both skaters named Ewa Borkowska (Ewa Justyna Wasilewska-Borkowska and Ewa Sylwia Borkowska), have participated in international championships and I would guess that there would be some better sources at the Polish Speed Skating Association / pl:Polski Związek Łyżwiarstwa Szybkiego (pzls.pl). And in the thread that I started in the facebook-group, there came an important piece of information that the other skater named at Speedskatingnews.info as Ewa Justyna Wasilewska-Borkowska, quote: “Ewa Justyna has married in 1990 and changed her name to Wasilewska.” Best regards Migrant (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Participated in international championships and medalled in national championships. Best regards Migrant (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I had challenged the information in the article (personal bests and so on) because of what I found on speedskatingnews, but SpotsOlympic claimed it wasn't a reliable source (despite adding it to the article in the first place). Either the info there is reliable, and then most of the current article is wrong and woefully incomplete (and all other articles created by SportsOlympic need a thorough check as well), or the info on speedskatingnews is right. To verify this, we need, not people on facebook, but reliable sources like newspapers, or primary sources like the ISU. If the information on participation in international championships can't be verified from such sources, then we can't accept speedskatingnews as a source.
- Now, Speedskatingnews claims she participated in the 1991 World Allround Championships.[25] But Schaatsstatistieken.nl makes the same claim about the other Borkowska[26]. Inconclusive, until one looks at all her results at speedskatingnews, which claimls that she competed at the 1987 Berlin World Cup, when she would have been 13 years old. So I guess we can safely dismiss speedskatingnews as an unreliable site, despite what has been said on Facebook. Fram (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – assuming for a split second that the "Warsaw" part (30 November to 1 December 1991) of the 1991–92 ISU Speed Skating World Cup [pl; de; nl; ko] would be a notable event in its own right (which seems highly unlikely: no Wikipedia seems to have a separate article on that Warsaw event), then it can safely be said that Ewa Borkowska (speed skater, born 1973) had a minor role in that event, and that her participation in that event is the only claim to fame on which her Wiki-notability rests. In which case (still assuming for a split second that the Warsaw 1991 event would be notable in its own right) WP:1E applies, which has, for instance, "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate" – so, no way, the article on this skater does not pass any sort of notability criterion. The sum is: non-notable contribution to a not quite notable event. If the event were notable, the Ewa Borkowska (speed skater, born 1973) article title could be a redirect to that event (assuming she would be worth mentioning on the Wikipedia page about that event), but since none of that seems to materialise, not even by a far approximation, the Ewa Borkowska (speed skater, born 1973) article title should, under current circumstances, not exist in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is, in fact, no consensus-approved SNG covering speedskaters, who must stand or fall either on making the Olympics or meeting the GNG; no notability criterion accords them presumptive notability merely for being a champion or participating in general international competition. Nor do we confer presumptive notability to subjects with articles on other national wikis. There has been ample time to put sources in the article were there any significant coverage out there. This has not been done. Ravenswing 06:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely agree with the last two delete voters. She doesn't meet any sort of general notability standard and there is no approved assumed notability guideline for speedskaters, outside of making the Olympics (which she hasn't) or meeting the GNG. Participating in a general international or regional competition isn't enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. An article on the subject was deleted in 2013 and there is a consensus that this new version does not meet the requirements either. Haukur (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josey Greenwell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography of a non notable musician who fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and already deleted via an AfC discussion. Almost all of the sources cited are unreliable, self published, and has no significant coverage in multiple secondary, reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half of the sources are blatant PR services. As for the other, admittedly I'm not well-versed in LBGQT sources but what's here seems pretty insignificant, being Q & A or promotional. The only thing that come close to indicating some kind of notability is the Esquire piece, and although one could make the argument it is about him because he is called out by name through out, the purpose of the piece--what it's really about--is a shopping experience; he's just the model they happen to use. A definite fail per WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater @ 15:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has a few softball interviews in LGBT publications and was mentioned in passing in a few stories about events in which he was involved (as noted by Shelby above), but the found sources tend to be reprints of press releases and the usual self-created social media promotions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitti (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Aside from the comune, the only legit entry on this disambiguation page is Bitti (name). The rest are partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fulfills WP:D - confusing set of Bittinames Lightburst (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't satisfy D, not even a little bitti: see WP:Partial title matches. None of the other entries is referred to as simply "Bitti". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. Disambiguation can be achieved by a hatnote at Bitti targeting Bitti (name). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoib Nikash Shah[edit]

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

Biography of an actor whose claim to fame is that he was part of a film that won many awards at international film festivals. The sources cited are merely passing mentions of him. Neither has he received significant roles in multiple notable films and fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable actor. no indication of notability.WorldNews89 (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in Objection : Shoib Nikash Shah has not just got roles but has also directed few movies. My Angel My Teacher is directed by him. Added few more references.Please. consider retaining the article now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manavdoshi17 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All sources provided are name-drops that don't discuss Shah in any depth. A Google News search turns up nothing better (String: "Shoib Nikash Shah"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 07:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retain or Draftify - When Shoib Nikash Shah is Search on Google comes with Many released movies and upcoming indo-holly movies. Should be either retained or draftified untill more sources added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.36.129.67 (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just releasing movies does not make a director notable as Wikipedia defines the term. We'd want to see reviews of his films that discuss his work in some depth, and at least in the English-language Google search such sources don't exist as far as I can tell. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 08:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable actor who does not pass WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 19:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lightly annotated filmmography that lacks sources and roles to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert:, you have !voted twice. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry about that. I use different computers and then go through the unhighlighted AfD nominations. I normally notice when I already voted or commented, sorry I missed it here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Grand Theft Auto V. $Salvio$ 13:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael De Santa[edit]

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

The notability here is entirely inherited, both from Grand Theft Auto V and Trevor Philips. The "Character design" section (almost entirely copied from Development of Grand Theft Auto V) consists of seven sources: four about the game, and three about Trevor, all with peripheral mentions of Michael. The "Reception" section has one useful quote from a game review, but the two others are simply about his relationship with—or comparison to—Trevor (one of which literally comes from a review of Trevor). All other sources are primary, and the majority of the article is just a plot description. Besides a brief analysis in a book chapter, there is not enough commentary on Michael to justify a separate article. The character is not independently notable. See also the AfD for the characters list. – Rhain ☔ 05:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 05:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 05:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. IceWelder [✉] 07:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED. Rhain has excellently gone through the sources and I agree. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. About 2/3 of the sources are from the game itself, which is a big red flag. The rest are mostly trivial coverage. Spicy (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand Theft Auto V as this is a plausible search term and would be more beneficial than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom-- most of the actual sources here are about Trevor, *not* about Michael, and notability is inherited. Nomader (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only passing mentions in sources at best, with nothing significant to write an article that meets the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Free Baptist Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NONPROFIT. There are no reliable sources to indicate that the subject of the article (a denomination that was based in Addison, IL in the 1980s and might be connected to an organization based out of a home in North Aurora, IL) was ever national or international in scale. The denomination has not received WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. The denomination is mentioned in one book by a Baptist publisher, which does show that it did exist at one time (with fewer members in the entire denomination than many individual churches), but there are no sources to indicate whether the denomination still exists in any form, or when they folded. There are also other Baptist churches around the world that have "Evangelical Free" in their name that are not affiliated with this denomination. "Evangelical Free" is a common term, and there are many unaffiliated Baptist churches. The previous deletion discussion in 2013 ended with no consensus and there have been no improvements to the article since that time. Tdl1060 (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tdl1060 (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tdl1060 (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. Tiny denomination. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Nope, sorry, the prior AfD closed with a lot of sentiment to Give People Time To Source The Article. Seven years later, plainly no one could be bothered. No prejudice against recreation if anyone comes up with any sources, but we can't keep a GNG-fail around indefinitely on the off chance. Ravenswing 05:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 311 (band). (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 05:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit![edit]

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

Likely fails WP:NALBUM. I'm not finding any reliable coverage on the internet. Everything's in blogs, unreliable sources, or in lyrics sites. There's a chance that since this was released in 1990 (pre-internet era) that there's print sources I don't have access to, but since apparently only 300 copies of this album were ever made, I doubt it. Title's rather generic, so a redirect wouldn't be helpful. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 311 (band). As this was a limited, self-released cassette from early in the band's career, one wouldn't expect to find much significant coverage, and I didn't find any. It's a valid search term though. --Michig (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Michig. And I think the exclamation point is probably enough to make the redirect a plausible search term. Sergecross73 msg me 04:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Freak Out. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 05:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freak Out (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song. I'm not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources for this song, which isn't surprising, given that it doesn't seem to have charted anywhere. AllMusic page is blank [27]. The source currently in the article appears to be user-generated, as it accepts submissions from users and speaks of editors on the homepage. A Google search indicates that this is not the only song with this title, so this wouldn't be useful as a redirect. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Freak Out. This doesn't seem notable, so I would suggest redirecting this to the disambiguation page, where several songs are listed, and changing the entry there for this song/single to link to Music (311 album). --Michig (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freak Out. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:55, 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 Tom Rosenthal (musician). czar 04:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who's That in The Fog?[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable album. [28] looks like a blog. Everything else is lyrics sites, streaming sites, unreliable blogs, discogs, etc. I'm not seeing anything that indicates this passes WP:NALBUM. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tom Rosenthal (musician). I didn't find much either, but worth a redirect. --Michig (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Rosenthal (musician): Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Rosenthal (musician): I also found nothing about this album. Pahiy (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tom Rosenthal (musician). (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bolu (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. I'm finding bandcamp, soundcloud, last.fm (deprecated), and a variety of unreliable ratings and lyrics sites. Major WP:NALBUM failure. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tom Rosenthal (musician). Doesn't appear notable, but worth a redirect. --Michig (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Rosenthal (musician): Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacolod Evangelical Church[edit]

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

No assertion of notability whatsoever. A local church without RS covering it. Kbabej (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no reliable sources in the 7 google pages for this topic, but there might be some promising stuff in print books... Seems like a historical church, but no evidence of notability can be found online. Awsomaw (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The majority of the article is on the origins of the church. This is of some interest, but apart from this it appears a NN local church with a substantial membership. I suspect that there are RS for the history. I wonder what the local language WP says, but unfortunately I do not know Talagog (or whatever other language). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources in the internet about the church are hard to find. It was covered in a regional newspaper, where it briefly talks about the church's history. A part of this book mentions the renovation of the church's chancel. A part of this book mentions the church holding a general assembly and conceptualization of the Baptist centennial celebration. A part of this book mentions the church as the owner of a building. With these reliable sources, I believe the article is good enough to pass WP:BASIC. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every book source mentioned is just that: a mere mention. BASIC states "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I don't believe the bar has been met here. We have a local newspaper article, then a smattering of mentions on coverage of other subjects. --Kbabej (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the regional newspaper piece is significant coverage and there are book sources but I cannot access them but I will say that Google book snippets are not always reliable as to the breadth of coverage in the publication, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: In each of the book sources listed above, the snippet shows the mention. It also shows there aren't multiple mentions per book (ie: thirty times in a chapter, as there would be if they was SIGCOV), leading me to conclude they are indeed only mentions. That essentially leaves us with one local article. --Kbabej (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: setting Notability issues aside, a browse of its article history reveals it was once tagged for immediate deletion (Nov. 2015) because of its promotional tone, and a tag at the top of the article indicates that one of its main contributors "appears to have close connection with the subject." True to that, the user was warned twice regarding the immediate deletion because the article violates neutral tone (i.e., using commercial tone for the subject). Despite revisions made by various editors from that time until now, the relevant warning tag above the article still exists. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My vote is delete since the article was originally meant to be promotional as per its history, and the promotional tone still remains since the tag above the article ("appears tp have close connection" thing) still exists despite several fixes and overhaul. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to only having a single in-depth reliable source and therefore failing WP:NORG. Unless someone can come up with another one, but it's been two weeks now without another one coming to light. So, I think it's a safe bet that one won't appear. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE shows only WP:ROUTINE coverage, does not meet addresses the topic directly and in detail. // Timothy :: talk 19:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - its possibly notable by my standards, but we still need significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG, a search on google news turned up quite a few hits. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as keep after sources were found and added to the article. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 02:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Bird[edit]

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

Non notable musician. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable sources available online: would be curious to see if any newspaper archives have anything additional. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 23:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment article at our French counterpart has sources. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Bird DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added book and periodical sources from Google Books and linked the French Wikipedia article. Now going off the Googles. I can't imagine that the eight most popular male singer in France, who released many albums in a short career and who was with Decca wouldn't have significant coverage, but I'll have to reach out to someone with access to British newspaper access to get a better idea. It's almost certainly a keep, but I'll wait to vote until I can align it with rationale. If people would refrain from voting for a day or two until I've finished the research, that would be prudent. Thanks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward changing my vote if DiamondRemley can find better sourcing. However, I read through the article and cannot find any claims that would establish notability, and the sources are at best mentions. For example, the source relating to Chuck Berry states "Chuck Berry is cur- rently making a town tour of France with a package that features Ronnie Bird and the new folk singer Antoine." That's just not good enough - it's a passing mention, and touring with someone does not create notability. The fact that the claims for notability are that he was voted the eighth most popular French male singer and hosted a radio show once in the 60s is just evidence, in my view, that he is not notable. When an editor clearly attempted to find any sources related to an individual and still failed to come up with anything but passing mentions, it shows that there are unlikely to be any good sources available. Being mentioned in numerous places at numerous times does not pass GNG or establish significance. Again, if someone can show me something which would establish notability with more than passing mentions, I'm open to changing my vote. But right now, delete, easily. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried and failed? Your vote and comment is disappointing. I do research one database at a time. I am not finished. Where is your patience? I asked people to refrain from voting; I have not voted myself yet. I don't just look for significant coverage; I improve articles as I go. I know some people like to phone it in. That's not me. I am as thorough as I can be. FWIW, these brief mentions are from valid sources and give an idea as to his career activity, showing he was performing with English language performers in his own country. Why criticize the relevant? Billboard is based thousands of miles and a language away from that of Bird's base and indicate international attention at a time when British and American bands dominated. I have not said that was enough. I don't read French, I would have rotten luck getting ahold of a librarian or music expert in France to help me, but I know enough to guess that when I Google someone and get a bunch of Decca album covers, and when French Wikipedia has a better article with a more complete discography, it's likely they are notable. By the way, the 1992 article is hardly a passing mention. I'll be working on this for days. Now off to my French class. Adieu. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take my vote personally. My only point is that someone did perform an in-depth search for sources already, and the current sources are lacking. I stated I would change my vote if and when sources are found - I have no obligation to wait to vote. I think my statement should speak for itself. Cheers. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well on not taking things personally, and of course you don't have to wait to vote. AfD discussions get long when we go back and forth on every little point, so I won't expand on some of your points that I could except to express that no in-depth search has been conducted. A search isn't in-depth unless it is conducted where the exonerating evidence of notability is likely to be. What's been conducted on the part of the nominator is probably the minimum required of WP:BEFORE (which we've discussed elsewhere and which is not a slam). What's been conducted by me is everything I can think of at the moment and it falls short of what a thorough search is. Until someone looks at French sources for this era, it's a search in the shallow ponds of Google and the information lakes available on the open internet. I find notes on Bird's recordings reported in Billboard indicate he must have received more significant coverage in his home country. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've requested someone to look into it at the British newspaper archive. If I don't hear back in a few days, I will seek alternatives. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:GNG. Sources I added to further reading were cited on the French Wikipedia page; these and what's in the article now indicate the subject meets WP:GNG. Beyond that, I also think Bird's appearances in the US trade publication Billboard has a traces of WP:NEXIST. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cardiffbear88 probably doesn't love constructive criticism, but I must point out that in this case they did not complete WP:BEFORE, B. Carry Out These Checks, #7 Check for interlanguage links. Had they done so, they would have seen that the French Wikipedia article was more developed and other sources, including but not only a book with the subject's name in the title. If Cardiffbear88 did complete B #7, they didn't take the French Wikipedia's article's content into account when making the nomination. I suspect the former because the nomination statement reads, in part, "no evidence of reliable sources available online". This is untrue and I think perhaps the nominator left out "significant coverage" or something from the statement. In my exploration of Google Books alone, I found reliable secondary sources. I've looked into this book with Bird's name in the title more closely and it looks to be a good secondary source. I'll keep working on the article as I can, but AfD is not for cleanup or rewrite. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39 it’s almost like you wrote that comment specifically looking for an argument - please can we stick to the merits of the article rather than attacking me. I completed WP:BEFORE to the best of my ability - I did take into account the French version and its referencing is also very poor. The article is much improved now - thank you - but I would point out that it has been unsourced for several years, and whilst the sources you’ve added are reliable, the ones that I can access are passing mentions and do not constitute significant coverage. Editors may believe that offline sources make the subject notable - but these are not covered in WP:BEFORE. Please assume good faith as per WP:AGF. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never did I imply you edit in bad faith; be careful that you do not imply that I write in it here ("looking for an argument"... It's AfD.). Read about good faith. It's the quality of the nomination that is an issue, not questionable motives, which is what bad faith is. You wrote "WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable sources available online" but remember that "sources do not have to be available online or written in English". You say you did see the French Wikipedia article's sourcing and remarked that its referencing is poor, and I don't know what to do with that statement because I was able to look up the books and publishers and they're legit and it's not like they have to meet a notability standard, only reliability, and by "poor referencing" I think you refer to a lack of online citations and not enough citations. But the sources were on the article and you prodded ours. The nomination statement is not entirely accurate; you did see indication of sourcing. If you see sourcing you don't understand or that isn't enough, just say it in the nom. :::You not only nominated this for deletion, but you previously prodded it as an uncontroversial deletion, and then in this nomination you are open to there being coverage in newspapers and you apparently saw the books listed in the French article by then, so that was a poor prod.

There is going to be some heat around it when researchers sit down to clean up someone else's shoddy work from years past, to spend a few hours researching something nominated, if we find sourcing on the internet and not behind a paywall. Yeah, we're probably going to say something. Add it to the article or mention it in the discussion, telling us specifically what you find and why it falls short, and we can't fuss over that. If you take a few minutes to add those sources to the article, adjust tags as necessary, nominate then, there's a lot less we can say. You don't have to... But add nothing to the article except the AfD and you'll hear about it, especially if they see that notability is likely and the article only needs clean up.

Thank you for acknowledging the work done; you often do that and it is more than most do. You say in the nomination statement that newspaper archives may have more. If you want to reach out to someone like me, in advance of prodding and nominating, similar to what we did with William Holmes recently, I'd be open to something like that. Peace. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bird is on the cover of at least three issues of Jukebox Magazine. I added those to a Further reading section. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the French sources such as reliable book sources, and Billboard refs, also found an AllMusic staff written bio here and the article is being currently improved so that it should be included in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - a cover band musician who toured for five years and gave up. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more of his discography to show he was more than a cover musician. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC) [belated signing][reply]

He made a comeback with a new album in 1992 and later releases and became a songwriter for other artists in the 198Os so he is more than a cover musician of 5 years, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the closer FYI I'm attempting to get access to information outside of my country. I hope to know whether someone will be able to do look ups for me in a few days. This is a dark information time with interlibrary loan being shut down in many locations, including mine. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now seen all I can reasonably expect to get in 2020. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new sources added. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now has more sources --Devokewater @ 16:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something wrong with the publisher Camion Blanc? I'm rather surprised that people have been scrabbling around for news sources about the subject when there was a 186-page biography cited in the French article before this was even nominated for deletion (ISBN 9782357799592). Phil Bridger (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, that was discussed some above. The French sources were seen but not taken into account when the article was nominated. The searched elsewhere to improve the article as I could. And no, I don't think there is anything wrong with that publisher. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:54, 31 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 (but with many incoming links, I will redirect to Hockey stick graph). The basic argument for deletion is that the article is a WP:POVFORK, which is an article that covers the same subject area of another article, in a manner that compromises the WP:NPOV policy.

Having compared this article with Hockey stick graph, I find that this argument has a great deal of merit. Both articles contain a chronological history of how the graph was assembled, and list out the scientific and political challenges to the graph. Labelling one version of this chronology with the controversial term "controversy" is deeply problematic in view of the NPOV policy.

In defense of the article, it has been pointed out that the controversy in itself is a notable subject. Another argument was presented that deletion of the article would constitute censorship. Regarding notability, deletion of this article does not preclude notable challenges from being presented in the main article about the graph. As to the censorship argument, the NPOV policy contains a section on undue weight. Pseudoscientific arguments should not be presented as being on par with actual science.

Since I find that this article does run afoul of the POVFORK policy, I am closing this discussion accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey stick controversy[edit]

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

This article is basically a WP:POVFORK of hockey stick graph giving undue weight to the political debate ginned up by the climate change denial machine. Any significant content is already in the main article at hockey stick graph § Controversy after IPCC Third Assessment Report. While the graph has cultural significance, it is a very minor element of the science of climate change, and two (enormous!) articles, including what is basically a spun-out criticism section, seems excessive, especially since quite a bit of this article has had to become basically a line by line rebuttal of contemporaneous denialist talking points that were rapidly shown to be incorrect. Hockey stick graph is twice as long as quantum mechanics and this, incredibly, is longer still. Guy (help!) 16:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Two questions: Is the controversy not notable in and of itself (e.g. with book such as the The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars to warrant its own article? Can the article not be written in a way that does not give undue weight to climate change denial rhetoric? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans, in itself? Not beyond the graph. Seriously, we have four times as much content on this as we do on quantum mechanics. That makes no sense. Guy (help!) 08:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an argument for breaking it up into more pages rather than deletion. The QM category contains 509 pages. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pelirojopajaro, my problem is this. The hockey-stick graph is just a representation of temperature records. Its only significance is that it is sufficiently striking that the climate change deniers lost their collective shit and set about trying to make it not true. In this they failed. There is genuinely only one topic. Or rather, the two topics are the instrumental temperature record (which we have) and the hockey-stick graph freakout. And I think we're far enough past that freakout now to prune down the content to a few of the less obviously bad faith attempts and treat it as a single subject. Guy (help!) 09:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I think the controversy is notable. Arguably the article is too long, but that can be fixed by shortening, not deleting it. Also I don't think its a fork; it is its own subject. Saying it gives undue weight to the political debate is somewhat odd, because the political debate is the main point of the controversy William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
William M. Connolley, but the political debate was not in good faith, that's the point. The "controversy" was engineered and sustained by the climate change denial industry. Guy (help!) 08:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That the controversy was not in good faith is irrelevant to the deletion debate; that's a discussion about the page content. FWIW, though, I do not believe that the debate was entirely or originally "engineered"; it would be better to say that the flames of what could have been a valid scientific discussion were fanned out of all proportion. And of course the degree of plausibility of debate has changed over time; nowadays, with multiple independent repros, there's nothing left, scientifically, but this article isn't (shouldn't be) about the science. You are I think right that the page is too huge and doubtless duplicates much that is in the HS page William M. Connolley (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like there has to be at least one notable historical controversy involving an actual hockey stick, and that this phrase would be ambiguous to any such instance. BD2412 T 02:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per William M. Connolley. This is not a WP:POVFORK, but a standard WP:SUMMARY situation where a subtopic that would be WP:UNDUE to cover in full length within the main article gets its own page. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Connolley & HaeB. The article has some definite issues but is not a POVFORK. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is there a rationale for deletion? I'm not seeing one. The article is extensively sourced, well organized, on topic, with notable subject matter. I get that the climate change debate creates challenges & obstacles for balanced treatment of related topics in wikipedia. But. We don't have any meaningful standard for "appropriate article length". The complaint that it's longer than quantum mechanics is not, by itself, a logical reason for any action here, much less complete obliteration. --Lockley (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum mechanics has a separate page at Introduction to quantum mechanics. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems that no other sources describe anything like a "hockey stick controversy" as being a thing with that title. I cannot even find a source which collates these events in a coherent fashion. Much of the content in this article is repeated in other articles and is handled better, IMHO. How is this not WP:SYNTH? jps (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that interpretation of WP:SYNTH, but in any case e.g. National Geographic refers to it as "the Hockey Stick Controversy" here and one of the sources currently cited in our article even carries the term in the title. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My worry is that this source may be lifting this terminology straight from Wikipedia. jps (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article references Media Advisory: The Hockey Stick Controversy which is from 2005, while the article itself only dates from 2007. The terminology is used in a number of other places, such as An unwinnable fight by Mike Hulme. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. These sources, however, don't seem to agree with the structure of the current article. They seem to indicate something much more narrow. jps (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy", 18 February 2005 by Gavin Schmidt and Caspar Amman in RealClimate, also "The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming" by James Wang and Michael Oppenheimer, published in 2005 by Environmental Defense, pp. 3–6 covers the topic, with a box on p. 6 explaining 'The “hockey stick” controversy'. That's concise but pretty broad, covering the main actors up to that date, of course the congressional hearings came later. . . dave souza, talk 10:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - dump whatever isn't there already into Climate change denial --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom POVfork, also this is just spammy use of the same sources not convinced the weight is due and not useful at this length PainProf (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK and WP:TNT. I am not against a selective merge to Climate change denial. Labeling pseudoscience as "controversy" is a red flag of nonsense. We are not a soapbox for everyone wishing to spread disinformation. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as too detailed and it would be a waste of an editor's time to attempt to summarise it as there is already a summary attempted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph#Controversy_after_IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Holy cow, how much more blatant does the duplication need to be before it registers? Compare Hockey_stick_controversy#Mann,_Bradley_and_Hughes_1999 and Hockey_stick_graph#Mann,_Bradley_and_Hughes_1999, including subsections. That's about 75% the same stuff, and those are big sections. The same kind of redundancy is woven throughout the article. If it's important, it can go into Hockey stick graph; we really don't need an obvious POV fork to impart a slightly different flavour of the same material, at length. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete I'd say. It shows independent notability, but not enough for its own article. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 18:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleting this is pure censorship. It is defined as denial stuff.. but there is not argument for how that is? The article is well documented. No other article sums it up as well as this one. If so please link to that. All links are valid. It is very analytic in dealing with the points made. So WHY deletion? Are we afraid of people knowing both sides of the matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.165.132.198 (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC) — 93.165.132.198 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep A lot of serious scientists and other professionals have thrown doubt on the validity of the Hockey Stick curve as an accurate representation of past temperatures. Notably the work of Steve McIntyre should not be ignored or suppressed. Wikipedia would be a poorer source of information if that kind of honest scientific debate is nowhere to be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.179.218.127 (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC) — 188.179.218.127 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Most definitely. This controversy is growing as time goes by as predictive models are revised. I agree with HaeB this is not a WP:POVFORK, but a standard WP:SUMMARY situation where a subtopic that would be WP:UNDUE to cover in full length within the main article gets its own page. It is its own topic and is being cited as such by notable sources, increasingly so. Regards, Alfy32 (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very important article covering serious issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.218.74 (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC) — 80.51.218.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Heavily trim, I think? This is a deeply confusing mess. It's not a straightforward WP:POVFORK, not least because it's fairly NPOV—there's a case that it gives too much weight to reports by sceptics, perhaps, based on the fact that it has more stuff on them than Hockey stick graph, but it doesn't seem clear-cut to me. And, per comments above, sources seem to exist that suggest that something by the name of "hockey stick controversy" is notable. On the other hand, it clearly has large amounts of redundancy to HSG. Moreover, HSC is supposed to be about the political controversy (at least judging by the hatnote on HSG), but reams of content on here seem to be about sceptical scientists publishing things. Perhaps it should be kept, but trimmed to the politics stuff, with any useful content from the "science" bits merged into HSG, Climate change denial or somewhere else. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above "delete" !votes. Redundant, overlong, POV-fork-ish, weaselly. XOR'easter (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

Some of those promoting deletion of that article are complaining that this article devotes too much attention to the arguments of the climate sceptics. I have a contrary impression. While this survey article gives due attention to both sides of the dispute, it is heavily biased as it strongly and systematically favours the theory that the climate is unprecedently warming. This bias is quite systematic, therefore, I shall present only some examples of it.

Concerning the climate sceptics, systematically an argument ad hominem is used. It has been stressed that climate sceptics are related to the oil companies and are financed by these companies; that they are not real scientists, etc. However, in that article, there are rare if not none corresponding remarks about the conflicts of interests of the climate activists. It has never been asked in this survey about the external to science motives of those scientists who support the hockey stick model(s). And when this article discusses "Congressional Investigations":

"The letters told the scientists to provide not just data and methods, but also personal information about their finances and careers, information about grants provided to the institutions they had worked for, and the exact computer codes used to generate their results,"

then this article describes it as

"The increasing politicisation of the issue..."

I managed to download 28. July 2020 version of that article. The last literature reference dates to 2015. In 2011, Michael Mann sued Tim Ball who had declared that Mann had committed scientific fraud. This court saga has not yet ended. However, in that article, I did not find any references to that court saga, despite the court documents are pretty available on the internet.

However, these shortages of that survey article can be recovered. Jüri Eintalu (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In most cases, the existence of articles about "X" and "X controversy" means that the "controversy" is covered in WP:UNDUE detail, and I don't see any reasons to believe that this case is any different. My layperson's understanding is that the hockey stick graph is a representation of mainstream climate science, and the "controversy" is an aspect of climate change denial, which is important as an economic and political force, but is fringe or fake science. In the context of this scientific topic, therefore, covering the supposed "controversy" at great length violates WP:UNDUE, and the fact that the undue detail has been spun off into a separate article does not change that. Sandstein 19:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per UNDUE, POVFORK and if it existed, WP:WHATTHEHELL?. This may be the longest single article I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and it's not even about something -- it's about people bitching about a graph explaining something else. I cite the rule maybe about twice a decade, but if there's every a time we should ignore the damn rules and blow something the hell up, it's here. Ravenswing 02:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK and WP:TNT. Since this is clearly a pointless content fork and would take a fundamental rewrite to meet Wikipedia's standards if it wasn't anyway. So, there's zero good reason to keep it. Whoever wrote it should write a book or blog post or something like that instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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) 23:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Publications[edit]

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

Non-notable small publishing company per WP:NCORP, that owned some adult magazines years ago. It was created by a sock puppet. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BCAST. Devokewater (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Devokewater (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Devokewater (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Devokewater (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge As their publications included top-sellers like Fiesta there are sensible alternatives to deletion. See also Bomis. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The magazines owned by the company are/were notable, however there is nothing notable about this company per WP:NCORP.--Devokewater (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nom. I don't see savable material or a good merge target. --Lockley (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited. I'm unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:30, 31 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. re: redirection, the swim is not currently mentioned in Menai Strait. czar 04:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Menai Straits Swim[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this annual swimming race across the Menai Strait. Current version wholly unsourced. Searches yield some local newspaper coverage for some years but nothing that would get even close to establishing notability, not least because they read like press releases from the sponsoring company . Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Tacitus records that Roman auxiliaries swam across the straits back in the day. This latest event seems to have been running since 1955. The worst case would be merger to Menai Strait per WP:ATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is a simple short advertisement for a company sponsoring a swim across the Menai Strait. It makes no mention of any historical crossings of the strait by Romans or others. A simple, modern, outdated and unsourced advertisement. Hence the request to delete. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I don't see any justification for redirecting to Menai Straits: people are much more likely to search for the latter than for the former. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the other delete voters that this is essentially an advert for a swim and that a redirect probably isn't needed. Plus, it fails WP:GNG as it currently is anyway. Which I doubt will change. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:30, 31 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. czar 04:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Land of the Lost (1974 TV series) geography and technology[edit]

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

Someone removed the notability tag on this a long time ago without adding a single third-party source. The series itself is notable, but there isn't significant coverage for these plot elements to build a stand-alone article, as required by the WP:GNG. The whole article is written in an in-universe style and Wikipedia articles are supposed to be WP:NOTPLOT. No sources can be found that fix these problems. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this hasn't gained any out-of-universe coverage in reliable sources that I can find. The whole thing reeks of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. In an unrelated note, I've also nominated one of the files used in this page at WP:FFD, as it probably fails WP:NFCC #8. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:49, 31 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. czar 04:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes 'N Spares (pinball)[edit]

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

Non-notable pinball machine. The sources in the article are a dead link to what appears to be a sales site and a user-generated database. Of the coverage that comes up in a WP:BEFORE search: pinside.com, user-generated. IPDB, a user-generated database. "Vpinball.com", the piece is written in the first person, so it looks like a blog. Unsure if [29] is reliable or not. Beyond that it's web forums, pinterest, and sales sites. I don't see a WP:GNG pass here. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While Arcade Museum/Killer List of Videogames is considered reliable (see WP:VG/S), I was unable to find anything else for this. I checked the Web Archive and most results were instead for an unrelated 1940s bowling arcade game, so I am unconvinced this meets WP:N. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It exists, but the level of coverage does not seem to warrant an independent entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 04:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Walsh (criminologist)[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a notable WP:PROF. Sources about this person are severely lacking. Press releases and CVs. Being quoted in the Toledo newspaper and in a slow-news-day personal interest story in 1999 on how love feels like a drug does not justify a standalone biography in Wikipedia. jps (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found and added to the article 12 published reviews of four books (three authored, one co-edited) with one of the authored books reviewed in the New York Times. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per David Eppstein, seems to pass WP:AUTHOR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on the explanations above. TJMSmith (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frantic Mantis[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBAND. Tagged for ten years as unsourced and may not meet GNG. Only link on page is MySpace. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would suggest merge to Shelby Cinca, but I notice the nominator has just redirected that because it was unsourced. It is, however, sourceable - there's enough coverage of Cinca I believe for an article. --Michig (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, the Shelby Cinca page has been redirected to yet another band: The Cassettes. That's just too far away, and (ultimately) redirecting Frantic Mantis to the Cassettes would not make much sense in my view. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This band seems to have gone largely unnoticed in the reliable music media. The only halfway-decent source I could find was this: [30], and even that's barely more than a press release. Otherwise the band is only found in the typical streaming and social media sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Doomsdayer520. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aline Khalaf. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 05:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khayfa Minnak[edit]

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

This album doesn't seem notable. The article hasn't cited any sources since at least 2008 and I couldn't find multiple (or really any) in-depth reviews in reliable sources about the album. There isn't even an Arabic language article for it. So from what I can tell the article doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Adamant1 (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aline Khalaf: Barely found anything about the album, whether in English or Arabic. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. $Salvio$ 13:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A-Z (store)[edit]

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

The article doesn't cite any sources and I wasn't able to find anything about the company in a WP:BEFORE. So the article doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. As an alternative to deletion it could be merged or redirected to the article for it's parent company Bilka. Although, I'll leave it up to others to decide. Adamant1 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:15, 31 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. $Salvio$ 13:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InkTank[edit]

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

I've had a look into the sources here and I'm not really sure they're sufficient to prove the notability of the web portal here. The GameSpy source isn't bad at all though I'm not really convinced by the other three. — 🦊 02:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. — 🦊 02:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — 🦊 02:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Prod'd on 13 May 2008 so ineligible for soft deletion. czar 04:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I disregard the opinion of Andrew Davidson because it contains personal attacks, which are not permitted (WP:NPA). Sandstein 10:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bertie the Bus[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Yet another example that PRODs are vulnerable to abuse. Let's discuss then - can anyone find anything to salvage this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three Thomas articles nominated for deletion. The Thomas characters mentioned have over 70 years of constant publication in books and 35 years on TV. This should be discussed on WP:THOMAS instead of randomly deleting much loved characters for deletion. Please don't force Thomas fans to use the ad laden fandom wikis when we can have articles discussed in a encyclopedic context on Wikipedia. 2A01:4C8:57:1178:8887:69D5:20FD:50C1 (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the purpose of those fan wikis. They are great places for non-notable content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a sure way to save these articles, and it is not by talk page discussions. It's by providing significant coverage in reliable sources about them. In five days, no one's been motivated enough to try. Ravenswing 21:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another cookie-cutter drive-by with no specifics about the topic. The abuse here is the use of Twinkle to spam these cut/paste nominations without demonstrating any understanding or appreciation of the topic. This is part of the family of characters created by the Rev. W. Awdry and so there are clear alternatives to deletion. Improvement seems quite feasible as there are sources to be found such as Banking on Bertie the Bus, which details creation of a spinoff show about the character. WP:ATD states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." and so deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing in no way establishes that multiple people outside of creating the fiction have cared in any way about this character enough to generate secondary sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This character has not received significant coverage in reliable sources; full stop. Neither keep proponent has advanced a valid rationale for keeping the article -- being in a "family of characters created by the Rev. W. Awdry" being part of no notability guideline I've ever seen -- and if improvement is indeed feasible, in the seven years this article's been tagged and the week-plus since it was first prodded, why hasn't this been attempted?). A redirect wouldn't work, per WP:XY. Ravenswing 15:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge and admittedly allowing some special pleading. I just don't see the sources to support an article like this. The fiction is obviously very notable, and if you could even find a single source, it should be covered somewhere, and probably somewhere else. The List of Thomas & Friends characters is in a sorry state, as are the linked / sub-articles. I suggest a merge because there's a shred of primary sourced material (not independent enough to support notability) that could be WP:PRESERVED at a broader list. If there's a chance at making this better than a fandom wiki, it's to work on a better quality list. Jontesta (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not exist to preserve primary sources. That is not our function nor what we do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, and Wikisoure can't help since it's not really primary but fancruft. But it is worth remembering there is https://ttte.fandom.com/wiki/Bertie and it will be happy to take the content in - just copy it there and all is preserved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - We do include some primary sourced information in context with other secondary sourced information, as part of an actually notable article. I'm just trying to seek a compromise in case a valid merge target comes up in discussion. Jontesta (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harold the Helicopter[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Yet another example that PRODs are vulnerable to abuse. Let's discuss then - can anyone find anything to salvage this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character is well-established and covered in the Thomas & Friends Character Encyclopedia and there's plenty more sources to be found such as Experimental Entailments: The Case of Spatial Prepositions and Reproducing “Really Useful” Workers: Children's Television as an Ideological State Apparatus. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentions in passing, effectively one-liner plot summaries, are hardly 'well established and covered'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, Andrew, some of us check those sources, and furthermore verify the ones you put up. You really could stand, while you're quoting essays, to read the actual pertinent guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Ravenswing 15:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is not indepth enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This character has not received significant coverage in reliable sources; full stop. A redirect wouldn't work, per WP:XY. Ravenswing 15:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge and admittedly allowing some special pleading, based on what I'm observing at similar AFDs. I just don't see the sources to support an article like this. The fiction is obviously very notable, and if you could even find a single source, it should be covered somewhere, and probably somewhere else. The List of Thomas & Friends characters is in a sorry state, as are the linked / sub-articles. I suggest a merge because there's a shred of primary sourced material (not independent enough to support notability) that could be WP:PRESERVED at a broader list. If there's a chance at making this better than a fandom wiki, it's to work on a better quality list. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas non-notable per nom, without significant 3rd party coverage. --Lockley (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus against deletion; concerns about sourcing and merger can be addressed on the talk page. czar 04:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Management (game)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) (subsection products) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Yet another example that PRODs are vulnerable to abuse. Let's discuss then - can anyone find anything to salvage this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another drive-by nomination with no specific details about the topic – just the usual cut/paste boilerplate. As such, there's not really a case to answer. There has certainly been no consideration of alternatives to deletion per WP:ATD, such as merger to Charles S. Roberts (the designer) or List of Avalon Hill games (the publisher). And no study of likely pre-Internet sources such as the Handbook of Games and Simulation Exercises. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to find a game when it has a name like "management", so many search results appear to sort through. I can find pictures of every part of it and information to prove it exists https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7006/management but not sure if any reviews of it existed back then, or how popular it was. Dream Focus 11:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, given the game's name change, do any other sources come up? BOZ (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to List of Avalon Hill games. As said by Dream Focus, there is certainly evidence that the game existed, but little else from reliable sources that can be found so far. As there is absolutely no reliably sourced information currently in the article, merging is not appropriate. Interestingly enough, its entry at List of Avalon Hill games actually does have a source attached to it, but unfortunately, it is just a single sentence of coverage, so not enough for an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The added sources from "The General" are all primary, as it was Avalon Hill's in-house publication, which provide a lot more information on the product but doesn't help with notability, and the Urbanite Magazine article is the one-sentence reference I mentioned above. The Stephen Penn article, though, is pretty in-depth, and supports the claim in the Urbanite article that the game is used regularly in business schools. It would still help a great deal if some actual reviews could be found, but I think the information included so far just squeaks past a Keep for me. Rorshacma (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been basically rewritten from scratch; I have not yet evaluated it fully, but I think this at the very least warrants a merge. BOZ (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guinness323 below. BOZ (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game was republished in 1973 as Business Strategy. I have added reference to a lengthy article published in 2019 describing how the game is used at Harrisburg University of Science and Technology to introduce the concept of business management. Charles S. Roberts was the designer, and I have added another source that says it was his favorite game design of that period. Guinness323 (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Evidence of notability has been found. Dream Focus 13:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Impressive expansion, and I considered withdrawing my nom, but in the end, all we get are few mentions in passing. The best source is Penn's comment about how he used it, and it is just few sentences long. Even if we treat is an in-depth (and that's a stretch), GNG still requires multiple sources. Can we find anything else? A single review somewhere? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Penn article is much longer than a paragraph, it is several pages regarding his use of this game, I just kept the wiki content to a minimum because the article is about the game, not the pedagogy of classroom use..Guinness323 (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. I am satisfied with the existing sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good work on the HEY. I am satisfied that the article is notable - I even added two newspaper articles. Avalon Hill is Certainly very notable. I wonder why there is a redirect on Avalon Hill Games? Seems like a notable WP:NLIST could easily be created. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a list of their games? We have one, its just at List of Avalon Hill games. Rorshacma (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourcing identified. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kraken in popular culture#Film. A redirect is clearly favoured here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kraken (Pirates of the Caribbean)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Yet another example that PRODs are vulnerable to abuse. Let's discuss then - can anyone find anything to salvage this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the Pirates of the Caribbean version not the famous Clash of the Titans one of "Release the Kraken"! Even so, there seems to be plenty of coverage out there. For example, see Queer Buccaneers: (de)constructing Boundaries in the Pirates of the Caribbean Film Series which amusingly deconstructs it as a "Freudian vagina dentata"! As usual, the policies WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE apply and so deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kraken in popular culture. Most of this article is plot summary sourced to primary sources (mostly the pieces of fiction themselves), with some WP:OR sprinkled in for good measure. I thought there might have been some decently sourced information in the "Film Production" section that could be merged, but it really does not look like there is. I'm finding a few mentions of the Pirates version of the Kraken in some scholarly source discussing depictions of the Kraken in general, and while they can be added to bolster its entry in the broad list, none of it appears in-depth enough to support an independent article or demonstrate independent notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kraken in popular culture#Film, no evidence that this fictional creature passes WP:GNG, as usual the only coverage consists of passing mentions or plot summary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. It takes a lot to establish some component within a work of fiction as notable, and that is not passed here. We need 3rd party analysis of the thing, and that is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, and per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which is a policy too. The GNG requires significant coverage, not casual mentions or namedrops. Ravenswing 15:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kraken in popular culture#Film. Not notable enough for a standalone article. Maybe merge a tiny bit if need be. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 13:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein[edit]

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

NCORP fail. Earlier versions in the history have some sources, but the ones I saw are largely business awards or similar, and not SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 31 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teenu Arora[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the 2nd nomination. The only participants in the 1st nominationa was me and the article creator. I was inactive for some time so the result was no consensus.

All of the references mentioned have trivial mentions (or no mentions) of the subject and lacks in depth coverage, just having the name of the subject in a article does not depicts notability. Most of the articles are single paragraphs having few lines, that's even not about the subject. Also the references should be independent of the subject, this includes the articles where the subject talk about themselves, they are also not considered. Subject fails WP:GNG.

I am also adding the analysis of the references added by article creator in the last comment here.

1. https://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/musicindia/delhi-based-dj-turns-composer_79295.html -> subject is talking about themselves (violation of 1st point at WP:MUSICBIO)

2. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/Teenu-Arora-roped-in-by-Sushmita-Sen/articleshow/16739418.cms -> just a single para

3. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Teenu-Arora-popularly-known-as-DJ-Tnu-has-become-a-music-director-Mumbai-Mast-Kalandar-is-the-movie-with-which-he-debuted-as-a-music-director-Teenu-who-will-be-in-Chandigarh-for-promotional-purposes-has-three-more-Bollywood-projects-lined-up-I-am-in-talks-with-directors-who-are-even-offering-me-to-redo-the-movie-numbers-he-said-/articleshow/7293728.cms -> less than a para where subject talk about themselvers

4. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/out-of-the-box-4/ -> once again subject talking about themselves Zoodino (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This is the 2nd nomination by the same person as the first nomination failed.I don't understand why are you behind deleting this article which has enough news articles which are very well featured and has talked in detail about the artist. I have clearly mentioned all i have to say in the 1st nomination itself. Reposting it here. "The composer is notable and relevant news sources from Times of India , Indian Express , Mid Day , Zee News and many more has been used as references and all are featured news articles about the composer Teenu Arora. Moreover if you check the google news section with the name Teenu Arora you will get a bunch of articles from top news sources and it is clearly not WP:BOMBARDMENT, Additionally the composer's songs have crossed millions of views in YouTube. eg - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6KsymnZ21U and he is known to collaborate with many top artists and music labels as seen in news sources. This tag is out of misunderstanding. You said Most of the articles are single paragraphs having few lines, that's even not about the subject, but the real scenario is different for example quoting reference articles - (https://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/musicindia/delhi-based-dj-turns-composer_79295.html - Talks only about Teenu Arora and its not few lines ) , ( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/Teenu-Arora-roped-in-by-Sushmita-Sen/articleshow/16739418.cms - Talks about Teenu Arora and its not few lines ) , ( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Teenu-Arora-popularly-known-as-DJ-Tnu-has-become-a-music-director-Mumbai-Mast-Kalandar-is-the-movie-with-which-he-debuted-as-a-music-director-Teenu-who-will-be-in-Chandigarh-for-promotional-purposes-has-three-more-Bollywood-projects-lined-up-I-am-in-talks-with-directors-who-are-even-offering-me-to-redo-the-movie-numbers-he-said-/articleshow/7293728.cms - Talks about Teenu Arora and its not few lines ) , ( https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/out-of-the-box-4/ - Talks about Teenu Arora and its not few lines ) there are many more, all are detailed articles featuring Teenu Arora, which depicts notability and clears your misunderstanding Jehowahyereh (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The article creator is continuously neglecting the issues with the references pointed out by me. The article creator has just copied the exact comment form previous nomination (which was resulted as no consensus because of no participation from any other editor). This time it would be better if the nomination gets some participation from the fellow editors. Zoodino (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that some of this article's sources that could be reliable in other contexts, such as Times of India, allow creative artists to list themselves and add links to videos etc. (BBC in England does the same.) Those publications are legitimate sources for news stories, but the personal listings do not qualify per WP:SPS. Those are the only types of sources in which this gentleman can be found. While most of the article's factual statements about things he directed or produced appear to be true, none have received significant and reliable media coverage. All the guy has are brief listings of his participation in various songs and movies at typical industry directories and streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the news articles presented in the wikipedia article is personal listing or selfmade or self authored articles all are written by correspoding staffs of the news sites. Please go in deep in the article, So your point is void.

For example

1. https://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/musicindia/delhi-based-dj-turns-composer_79295.html - By Zee News Staff

2. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/Teenu-Arora-roped-in-by-Sushmita-Sen/articleshow/16739418.cms - By Times of India Staff

3. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Teenu-Arora-popularly-known-as-DJ-Tnu-has-become-a-music-director-Mumbai-Mast-Kalandar-is-the-movie-with-which-he-debuted-as-a-music-director-Teenu-who-will-be-in-Chandigarh-for-promotional-purposes-has-three-more-Bollywood-projects-lined-up-I-am-in-talks-with-directors-who-are-even-offering-me-to-redo-the-movie-numbers-he-said-/articleshow/7293728.cms - By Times of India Staff

4. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/out-of-the-box-4/ - By Indian Express staff

hence proved that these 4 articles mentioned by the nominator are not personal listing and written by corresponding news website staff. Thus the point raised is Void and you may Keep the article. Jehowahyereh (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment His albums Vaada,Oriental Craft and Soneya were music chart toppers. I have added and given reference from Indian Express Jehowahyereh (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment As per point 5 of notability for musicians and DJ's (Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels) The bracketed point is passed as he has many albums released under top record labels in India like T-Series , Zee Music, Times Music , Speed Records , Saregama etc.. which are the top music labels in India. henced proved notability on other grounds as well, so you may keep the article Jehowahyereh (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN Spiderone 21:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failing WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Maybe there's some "sources" out there, but nothing in-depth that establishes this person as notable. I might be inclined to vote based on them having albums released with the "top" Indian record labels, but I don't think that's enough on it's own without the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources to back it up. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Zee news story is written by IANS. See WP:SYNDICATED. Other stories are either short interviews or trivial mentions. - hako9 (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Murray (actor)[edit]

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

The article fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR, as he’s only had one significant role in Moving Violations. I strongly recommend the article be redirected to Moving Violations but I leave it to consensus to decide. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recommend that participants here review the comments at Talk:John Murray (actor) for context re the history of the article and activity that led to the current state of affairs. Largoplazo (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is clearly not the sourcing to show notability. Note that the first movie he is listed as having been in, we do not include him among the 22 listed cast members (some of whom appear to lack Wikipedia articles). That suggests his role in that film was very minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which film are you referring to Johnpacklambert? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Caddyman, which is the first film listed in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Johnpacklambert: ah yes, you must be referring to Caddyshack then, in which he was uncredited. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I guess I am getting tired. Hmm, yes that would make it hard to show he had multiple significant roles, if at least one of three listed was uncredited.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - He was the lead in Moving Violations, he had a significant role as, uh, the brother in Scrooged, he participated in that Murray golf show, he's done other minor stuff. There's some coverage of him, mostly related to Moving Violations. Not that it bears on the community's decision, but didn't the previous article state that he was kind of a semi-recluse sorta guy? My "vote" is a weak delete, because there is some coverage and because people are always going to be curious about him... Caro7200 (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One lead role in an obscure teen flick that just barely dodged direct-to-video doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. Fails NACTOR, NOTINHERITED and the GNG. Ravenswing 05:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article passes WP:NALBUM as highlighted in the discussion (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 05:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iration (album)[edit]

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

Poor refs. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related and of similar quality:

Weak Keep for Both Albums - I must point out to the nominator that per WP:NEXIST, "Poor refs" is not a criterion for deleting an article because there may actually be room for improvement if one attempts to search for sources and expand the article. For the two albums in this nomination, Iration (album) has a brief AllMusic review and some reviews in the specialty press (hippie rock and the like) such as [31] and [32]. Coastin' has done a little better in the press, with some deeper coverage such as [33] and [34]. Both articles need to be improved but there should be enough media coverage for stubs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Iration was a number one album on the Billboard Reggae Albums Chart, and Coastin' entered the chart at no. 2 ([35]), and apart from that there's enough coverage to justify articles, e.g. [36], [37].--Michig (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both: The self-titled album is also featured in Grateful Web, while Coastin' is also featured in Mxdwn, Jamaica Observer, Orange County Register and JamBase. With reliable sources indicated in this AfD, both articles are good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input everyone. If I understand this correctly, the WP:NALBUM can be covered by adding more citations to the reliable sources above? Or would the existence of these sources in general make it notable enough? I'm admittedly new to Wikipedia so I'm still trying to figure this whole thing out? Also, I believe just by adding more significant information in general, it would pass the WP:GNG, correct? One last question I have is if there would be a better place to put this information such as the artist's page or a dedicated discography page? I believe the albums to be notable enough to be represented on Wikipedia in more depth than a listing on the artist's page, but not necessarily notable enough for their own article, hence I propose the creation of a dedicated discography page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrastopheria (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Previous Voter - Not sure why a relist is necessary here, unless it's because of my "weak keep" vote above. That's not far enough from a true keep vote to conclude that there is no consensus. Consider my vote to be "keep" in spirit. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:30, 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elddis Transport[edit]

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

A user, Devokewater (talk · contribs), raised a concern at WP:RFD that this company doesn't seem to be notable. It may contain puffery or POV, but I do note that all the sources are primary or PR. I have not attempted WP:BEFORE myself, on assumption that Devokewater has already done so. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was surprised that Elddis was accepted by a new page reviewer. When I first came across the article it had no substance or any sources. I've tried adding sources but with no effect. Although due to its history (Siidle C Cook) it’s a well-respected company in its industry, however for Wikipedia its non-notable. --Devokewater (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devokewater; this was created in 2006, long before NPR even existed. Nightfury 13:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this company could be considered notable. A google search shows a news report from just 3 hours ago and there seems to be quite a few independent sources referring to them. Although this article does require a lot of work. PlunketMcShane (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the news report? Have you a link? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill, not notable. I can think of much larger haulage companies that don't have any articles here. Nightfury 13:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, Wikipedia isn't a yellow pages or a platform for promotion. I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 21:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Elddis (caravan manufacturer) which is more notable and has had articles published by sources such as Outandaboutlive, PracticalMotorhome etc. The caravan/motorhome manufacturer is more notable, this should be a redirect, at best. Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if Elddis (caravan manufacturer) is deemed to be notable it needs its own independent article, this is a road haulage company a separate business.Devokewater @ 11:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. The entry consists of few facts based on self-published soures, press-releases and mentions in passing. WP:CORPSPAM, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The relevant question here is whether significant coverage about this topic exists in independent, reliable sources to support the notability of this topic. While some editors asserted that the sources in the article were sufficient for this purpose, the analysis of those sources was not detailed enough to overcome the WP:GNG deletion argument—indeed, there was no response to the challenges to the reliability and independence of the sources in the article. Nevertheless, with only two editors agreeing the article should be deleted, I also do not see a consensus to delete this article either. Mz7 (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nnn (file manager)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources in article are entirely primary. Searches turn up no published, significant coverage of subject. List of articles at the end of the software's Github readme are either blog posts or software catalog descriptions. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there are now about six good review-style article links, so I think notability is pretty clear. - Snori (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Article references seems to have improved markedly since the AfD, and it's quite clear that it's a widely known piece of software in it's niche. - Snori (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to have some independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough that there are more independent references. Sources must cover the topic in a significant way. The new "sources" that have been added are the literal readme from the repo, and a few listicles from Linux websites that have passing mentions to the software. Wikipiedia is not supposed to be a comprehensive collection of all software tools in the world. If this software becomes notable, it'll get an article eventually. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it seems that none of the third-party sources satisfy the guidance given in WP:RS: "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.", and further, most of the topic uses primary sources TEDickey (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There has been several attempts to improve the article. Looks like deletion-decisions are driven by external references and not on actual merits of the program. Immediately after I added some improvements user TEDickey reverted them. If you have suggestions add inline and the program users who are interested may cater to them. Do not remove valid details just because you have no idea how the program works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.235.102 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - What's this outrage about third-party sources that originally prompted to include this page to deletion list? Unrelated sources are going to ascertain that documented capabilities of a utility (which actually work as documented) are genuine? By your actions and comments it looks like all tech web articles are unreliable. Deletionists - please use the program and revert back with data that disproves the documentation instead of googling third-party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.235.102 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking second ‘Keep’ !vote by this IP editor. You may only !vote once. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Snori. — Labdajiwa (talk) 02:09, 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 merge to Morristown College#Heritage Park. There is not consensus that the sourcing present is enough to satisfy GNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Park (Morristown, Tennessee)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. Run-of-the-mill park in a small town built on the site of historic Morristown College. But the college was demolished (and de-listed from the National Register), and Heritage Park was built on the empty field. The park is not demonstrably historic, and when it opened it received some note in the local papers, though I was unable to locate any source suggesting any significant coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First off, Morristown does not classify as a “small town,” it is a medium-sized city of 30,000, with a metropolitan area of 140,000. Maryville, also in Tennessee, has population 1,000 shy of Morristown, and an article of a park there of significantly lesser quality. The user that has posted the nomination of deletion has had a history of reverting my edits, basing on his/her perspective as disruptive, even when my edits had no intention of harming the articles that I edit. I have speculated the user is participating in hounding me.

Article is notable as park is one of the largest in Morristown Parks and Recreation department. No other park in the department has an article. Officials eyed park project as opportunity for neighborhood revitalization and development. ^[2] Park is also used for popular arts festival in Morristown after relocating from another park.^[3] --AppalachianCentrist (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1289065918509862915
^ Franklin, Sean (November 17, 2019). "Morristown celebrates history, future with opening of Heritage Park". WBIR Channel 10 News. Retrieved July 14, 2020.
^ "Arts in the Park submissions sought". Citizen Tribune. August 28, 2019. Retrieved July 14, 2020.

@AppalachianCentrist: The two paragraphs above were made by two different editors, you and an IP. Are you accusing me of hounding you or the IP? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I am accusing you. It appears that every time I add or contribute to articles, my edits are often get reverted by you, and it makes me curious if you are hounding me. Some edits regarding geographic locations on cities, like the ones you reverted on Morristown, were made because the geographic content of pages such as the larger cities or Knoxville or Chattanooga, which contain content such as route descriptions in those cities, and overall geographic location. Some of these do not necessarily have cited references.

Thanks, --AppalachianCentrist (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-sourced article, and arguable is on the National Register. Meets GNG. Small-ish towns can have articles on notable parks. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki: The college was in fact on the National Register, but when it was torn down in 2017 it was removed from the Register, and Heritage Park was built on the empty field left behind. How could a three-year-old park built on an empty field arguably be on the National Register? Magnolia677 (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on the now defunct college. There is no reason to have two articles on the exact same space.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A previous redirect to Morristown College#Heritage Park was reverted. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge) - this is not a 'well-sourced' article - all the coverage relating to the park is from the local paper or local news channel. By this logic, every single local park in the US could get an article (this is a slippery slope argument, but a true one). Morristown College -is- notable, which is why it already has an article. Sources saying that they are seeking 'art in the park' nominees is something that is run in every local paper across the US and using it to establish notability is just incorrect. WBIR sources are arguably more notable, but they are still local news stories about a local park opening. This absolutely does not pass GNG and no real significance has been established. A mention at Morristown College would make sense, no need to merge all of the content. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You said it yourself, it is a slippery slope argument. Maybe we should create more articles on local parks if they meet GNG, I know I've done at least one. It is significant as the site of a former college, and its role in the community, with enough sourcing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to the target suggested below. Due to lacking regional or national coverage of the topic. Per the notability guidelines. Plus, everything in the sources is extremely trivial stuff that most public parks get coverage in local news sources for. There is the Tennessee Encyclopedia source, but it's about the college not the park. Which already has it's own article. So, there's zero reason to keep this based on that. Otherwise, it's just a useless fork. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Morristown_College#Heritage_Park where the only notability related to the park appears to be, and where there's already a section. Perhaps we can get a recognition from AppalachianCentrist of the value of consensus after an open discussion. --Lockley (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per Lockley; that seems the reasonable answer. Ravenswing 05:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per the reliable sources and meets our criteria for WP:GEOFEAT Wm335td (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 12:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hasford Heights, California[edit]

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

No evidence it really exists/existed; not in GNIS or Durham; none of the cited references mention the name Hasford Heights. No other hits indicate notability or existence. Might be a hoax. Glendoremus (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it's a hoax, it should go on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia#Extant for 8–9 years (created on 8 April 2011)

Merge to List of Richmond, California neighborhoods. Source above says the neighborhood has a council but it's not on the map there... Smaller neighborhoods is not necessarily notable. Reywas92^Talk 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gildir (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may not be a hoax per this Google maps result [38]. Bingobro (Chat) 10:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this find; the geo-coordinates in the article point somewhere else. Glendoremus (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps scrapes data from other sources and often duplicates errors. Their description is lifted directly from Wikipedia. See WP:GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 02:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I've found several links (e.g. this list of neighborhood councils) which show that it is a neighborhood of Richmond, but I see no sign that it is notable in itself. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update Thanks to comment above, I see now that Hasford Heights is considered a neighborhood of Richmond, Ca. I've updated the article to reflect that fact and included the reference. I still don't think it's notable. There are more than thirty neighborhoods listed for Richmond and I don't believe we accept the typical city neighborhood as notable. Glendoremus (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would appear to be too minor an administrative pocket to pass GEOLAND. ——Serial 16:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is JUST a neighborhood see [[39]] Goldenrowley (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable neighborhood. newspapers.com returned no hits for "Hasford Heights". Google Books returned some books, but I could find no actual text. Cxbrx (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Archer[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing, but I will happily change my vote to keep if anyone can find WP:RS to establish WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 15:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There is physicist with the same name who throws out a few Google hits, but this musician fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NOTINHERITED. The page creator has been perma-banned for sockpuppetry after creating and editing the (probably autobiographical) page Kris T Reeder, another jazz musician: I'm suspicious that this page may have a similar CoI. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was and remains a stub article, but it already had references to a bylined Allmusic biographical article and an album review by John Fordham in The Guardian. Since then, I have added more bylined reviews, from The Sunday Times and AllAboutJazz. I don't have access, but The Wire archives indicate that Archer's "Story Tellers" was one of their contributors' Jazz CD of the year; the same CD also has a positive review here. The subject operates in a rarified area of music, but I would say that the sum of the bylined reviews of his work is sufficient for WP:MUSICBIO criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with AllyD above. This musician is a rather obscure behind-the-scenes guy but the sources found by AllyD, especially the knowledgeable AllMusic biography, give us enough for a basic stub article. I will also point out that some of his albums get robust reviews in the legit jazz press; see e.g. [40], [41]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion and added to the article such as The Guardian, AllMusic, The Times and jazz reliable sources so that it is clear that he passes WP:BASIC and that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage cited in the article, and I found a few more sources from a Google search. --Michig (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Four poorly written sentences with lapses in grammar and style suggest a creative use of the word "article". I can't vote on an article if it's not an article. But AfDs aren't supposed to be a tally of votes. If 9 out of 10 people say "Keep" an admin can still delete it. But none of them have the courage to do it in that situation. Did you know a non-admin can close an AfD? I saw it done recently. Any of you can close this if you want.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G7. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redin Kingsley[edit]

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

Appear to have played some minor roles in major productions, current sources are interviews and I'm not seeing anything that satisfies WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 16:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage from Ananda Vikatan interviews, which are reliable sources. There are more sources in the article. His roles in A1 and Jackpot are not minor because he appears throughout most of the film. The first source in the article covers his career in depth.— Note to closing admin: TamilMirchi (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. ^[1]^[2]

References

^ Sudarshan Gandhi, E.; Ramesh Kannan, B. (1 August 2019). "``சிம்பு நினைச்சா மட்டும்தான் அது நடக்கும்..! - `கோகோ' ரெடின்". Ananda Vikatan (in Tamil).
^ Pandiarajan, M. (22 August 2018). "நெல்சன் சொன்னதுக்காக அதைப் பண்னேன்; ஏன்டா பண்னோம்னு ஃபீலும் பண்னேன்..! - 'கோகோ' டோனி". Ananda Vikatan (in Tamil).

They are "all" interviews and they are not independent as all the material except for the questions is straight from the person. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." GSS ^💬 17:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly delete this article.TamilMirchi (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 18:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I, the creator of the page, accept deletion. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I see a consensus to retain this content in some form. Further discussion on merging can be had on the article talk page if desired. T. Canens (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America[edit]

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

Not notable book published by a nobody publisher, probably self-published. The books is mentioned a lot 'in passing' when otherwise discussing its author, or a film, or animal rights, or no kill movement, but the book itself is not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (books). Of the two current citations, one seems to be a book review for The Bark magazine, the other is a publicist/press release sort of article (which doesn't count towards notability). A WP:BEFORE search finds several more mentions-in-passing and a few more publicist/press release type articles. The publisher, Almaden Books, does not appear in online searches related to any other book except this and another by the same author (All American Vegan, 2011). Their old/defunct website appears in Wayback Machine from 2011 to 2013 with minimal information (a few paragraphs), showing only "Los Angeles CA" as an address. A search with California Secretary of State shows no corporation or LLC with that name, and a check for fictitious business names in Los Angeles County, Alameda County (location of author's facilities), and Santa Clara County (place with other Almadens) turned up nothing. I might conclude from this that the "publisher" is the author himself. Normal Op (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nathan Winograd. This article says almost literally nothing. Only the sfgate ref is worth saving, but that's as much about the author as the book, and the book has whatever notability it does because of the author. Station1 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what went wrong with that WP:BEFORE search, but I quickly turned up a number of in-depth reviews: by Foreword Reviews, ~~the Christian Science Monitor (whatever one might think about those guys),~~ and the Journal for Critical Animal Studies. That's not Times coverage but it's good enough. Nontrivial treatment embedded in other works, such as this monograph, is even easier to come by; the book has made some waves. I mean, it wouldn't be a calamity if this was treated in the article on the author rather than in its own article, but the coverage and material for a standalone are actually there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Christian Science Monitor is a passing mention, not a review. ForeWord Reviews is (and was in 2007) a fee-for-review service for indie and self-published books. [42] Normal Op (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - not sure what I was looking at w/ CSM. Yeah, that's useless. Struck. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re Foreword: the fee-for-review stuff is a special item, the "Clarion reviews" - and this is not one of these; it's a plain send-us-your-book-and-we'll-review-it item (the distinction is made quite clear on the page you linked [43]). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per User:Station1. Does not meet WP:SUSTAINED under WP:NOTABILITY. A book is published, some reviews are written at that time, and that is the end of it. Just because something exists does not mean that it requires an article on Wikipedia. William Harristalk 10:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:NBOOK with several reviews, including an extensive review in The Bark and a shorter but standard review in Library Journal. Questioning its lack of sustained coverage strikes me as rather goofy. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting NBOOK due to reviews pointed out above by DiamondRemley39.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:SUSTAINED is not applicable to reviews. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:57, 31 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. $Salvio$ 12:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saša M.Savić[edit]

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

This is a long-running autobiography project; see the talk page for details. In trying to clean this up, I have come to the conclusion that deletion, then waiting for an independent editor to create a neutral version, is the best option. There may be sources out there; at one point someone uploaded news scans that were then deleted from commons as copyright violations. As it stands, most included sources are primary source fact checks. I cannot find sources and question whether the notability is there, especially given the long-term personal promotion, which clouds the assessment of the claims. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourcing does not make any sense - the ref's seem to point to things other people accomplished. With the exception of the article scan of a local news article, the sources simply do not support notability. With autobiographies it's very difficult to distinguish fact from fantasy. A google search for his name + the word art turns up nothing (there are more than one person named Saša M.Savić). I doubt he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this looks like an advert - unsurprisingly, since it's an autobiography. Guy (help!) 13:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non, PR --Devokewater @ 15:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is a genuine artist, albeit fairly minor, i.e. a fresco artist and iconographer, you just need to look at the work and while I'm sympathetic to the delete arguments, the article itself has only had one sock dealing with it, so even the revision history not that bad. It can be cleaned up and suitable references found. He is a Serbian artist, so a simple search on Google Books, isn't going to find much. scope_creep^Talk 20:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, it was created and most of the content written by the subject. Guy (help!) 22:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I do not know if he is notable or not. The problem is with sourcing for a BLP article. If sources were uploaded to WP Commons and then deleted, those sources would have been citable, so that the content would be verifiable, rather than verified. As Serbian emigrant to Cyprus, sources will be in Greek or Serbian, so that googling is liable to miss its target. Another problem is that the author is clearly not a native English speaker, as shown by the use of the present tense where a past tense would be more appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, since it's an autobiography, one supposes that he could have chosen to do that had he wished to. Guy (help!) 22:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really have to do more to rid Wikipedia of autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are almost no sources that discuss the subject. It will say: Subject studied with professor X and then link to X's biography where the subject is never mentioned.
- [44] no mention of Savić
- [45] no mention of Savić
- [46] no mention of Savić
- [47] no mention of Savić
- [48] no mention of Savić
- [49] no mention of Savić
- [50] no mention of Savić
- [51] brief mention of an unfinished freco by Savić (in Bosnian)
- [52] interview with Savić (in Bosnian)
- [53] scan of article in the Cyprus Weekly on commons
- [54] deleted, likely same as previous
- [55] no mention of Savić
- [56] no mention of Savić
- [57] dead link
- [58] no mention of Savić
- [59] no mention of Savić
- [60] no mention of Savić Vexations (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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