< October 25	October 27 >

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renjith Touchriver[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reliable sources or awards for this editor. This is WP: Too soon until the subject becomes famous. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is high time we stopped being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Agree with WP: Too soon, article has no reference or else to verify the content. Alex-h (talk) 07:50, 30 October 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Newly added citations support notability. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something Fishy (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found to support it. Tagged for notability since June 2015. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added several sources - it was reviewed by Variety and has been covered in quite a few academic press type books, as well as some other sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I created this page as a translation from French Wikipedia to fill a gap in coverage of French cinema (woefully under represented here) and the work of a major French film maker: it was at the time mentioned in several other articles. Festival performances suggest notability, but only just. Emeraude (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Vitz[edit]

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

Actress possibly doesn't pass WP:NACTRESS. Only 1 breakout movie as a side character. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even the one source is unsure about her notability, it says "may see her star rise in 2007" which it might have done, but evidently didn't. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete breathless coverage that says someone might become notable in the future is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. The only reference provided would appear to be about Vitz based on the title but reading through it, one finds it is a review of the Nancy Drew movie and there actually very little coverage of Vitz in the article. Searching for sources, I could ony find mentions. This article is about the best coverage I could find and basically says Vitz has had not much of an acting career. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 31 October 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) 11:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Harris II[edit]

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

Almost all sources here are related to the subject. The Forbes source is just a directory page. The school and local newspapers are not reliable about the accomplishments of local figures.

The statement of his actual technical role is too vague to be meaningful. "30 under 30" is a publicity gimmick, and his role as the "Face of NASA" is equally a publicity gimmick. It is appropriate for NASA to do PR, but not on Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sourcing in the article is either from NASA which is not independent, or from university press / local press. My own search for sourcing turns up little more. The best I could find was Vice article which is ot very substantial. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carissa Capobianco[edit]

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

Non notable actress - Planned to rescue this however other than BFI and Amazon DVD listings there's literally nothing on this actress, Looks to meet NACTOR based on the films she's been in however entirely Fails GNG. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bunch of super minor roles does not a notable actress make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable actress....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil Saidi[edit]

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

non notable politician with no indication of satisfying WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. Sources cited are paid PR pieces and mention the subject briefly. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - PR articles and non notable politician. - Tatupiplu'^talk 07:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not suggest that he's ever held any political role that we consider to be "inherently" notable per WP:NPOL (national or state legislature or cabinet) — it says only that he's been general secretary of a political party's youth chapter and that he campaigned on behalf of actual election candidates as a surrogate, neither of which are notability-clinching roles. And the sources aren't getting him over WP:GNG, either: three of them explicitly label themselves as press releases from his own company with "no journalist was involved in the creation of this content" disclaimers, one explicitly labels itself as "branded content" (which is really just another way of saying "press release from his own company with no journalist involved in the creation of the content"), and the last is just a Q&A interview in which somebody happens to passingly mention Jamil Saidi's name in the process of discussing something else. Which means exactly zero of them constitute valid or reliably sourced support for Jamil Saidi's notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable politician. fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established and sources weak. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:29, 30 October 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) 06:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gayathripuram Educational & Charitable Trust[edit]

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Has there been a question of verifiability? or is this about notability? If this is a school / high school, notability requirements will be covered as a part of WP:NHS. Ktin (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on high schools and secondary schools, with rare exceptions, have been kept when nominated at Articles for Deletion except where they fail verifiability.

Some editors feel that there is almost always some suitable reliable sources available to base a good article on, and that it is more sensible to consistently retain these articles rather than argue about each one to try to eliminate the very occasional school for which coverage is hard to find.

Comment - it's not a school, it's an organization, which doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a school in Mysore city, India. It's also known as Gayathripuram Higher Primary School. I think we should rename it or create a different page and redirect it there? - Tatupiplu'^talk 06:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a charitable organisation, and not a school. The sourcing in the article fails to establish notability. A listing in a government document that lists NGOs serves to verify information, but does nothing to establish notability. Information from the organisation's own web site is not independent coverage and is not usable for establishing notability. Star of Mysore is a newspaper and reliable source, but two items from there are event listings and not news articles so again, not useful for notability. As for the suggestion of creating an article for the school and redirecting, that would require establishing notability for the school. I don't see that primary school as notable in a quick search. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a charitable organization, disguised and presented as a school just to make the AfD weak and non-eligible. 42.106.199.217 (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aveka Singh[edit]

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

As per my understanding, this subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply WP:TOOSOON. She's close to WP:GNG but we not only rarely keep sportspeople who only have received youth coverage, but discount youth sports coverage generally, and a couple of the articles are match reports. If she continues playing football at a high level she's likely to be notable in a few years. SportingFlyer T·C 21:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 22:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Way too early, but the sources show some notability, but it's not enough for me to pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with SportingFlyer's comments that this article is WP:TOOSOON but that if she keeps playing football at a high level, she'll probably be notable at some point. If and when such a point happens, I have 0 prejudice to this being recreated. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all relevant guidelines for footballers and no guarantee that they will ever be notable Spiderone 16:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as of now. GNG is far. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 10:06, 29 October 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 Draftify. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Solidarity/Shared Poland[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON - article about a political group launched barely nine days ago (!) Lack of media presence other than WP:NEWS articles of the day based on the group's press conference; zero in terms of WP:INDEPENDENT analyses, etc. Badly fails WP:NORG.

An word-to-word identical draft was submitted at AfC and was declined a few days ago[1] by an uninvolved editor; still, the author has moved it to mainspace.

Summing up – way WP:TOO SOON. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rafał_Trzaskowski#Wspólna_Polska_movement. Agree that it's too soon, this is currently tied to him. Reywas92^Talk 22:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a political group that has only recently launched so you should not expect a wiki page the size of the one of the Civic Platform's. Let the page stay and it will become bigger. The movement already has 17,593 so it is gaining popularity, more people are talking about the movement as well. Therefore I see no reasonable explanation for deleting this article. Thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Szczeszek2035 (talk • contribs) 05:50, October 27, 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trzaskowski is a fairly weighty figure. I'm inclined to think we should leave the article for a bit and see if the organisation gets more coverage. Rathfelder (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. This is not an article on Trzaskowski but on his initiative (not: organisation) which seems to fail GNG at this moment. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Red flags: No pl wiki article. Not mentioned in Polish Wikipedia biography of his. There is a bit of media coverage, but I think it is WP:TOOSOON to call his initiative notable. It may well become notable in few weeks or months, so I am also ok with draftying it instead of deleting. But for now it seems to fail WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - under the assumption it will become notable within the near future. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Trzaskowski. Clearly, info is verifiable, but independent notability is questionable now. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it so important for you to delete the page Kashmiri? Is it just because you oppose the movement? I believe the page will grow over time 100%. It is the former candidate for President, his movement is only getting more members. I remember the day it launched, every hour I seen hundreds of people join the movement. It has been 2 weeks and as of 17:38 27/10/2020, the movement has 17,636 members. The only real reason you want to delete the page is most likely you oppose the cause. HAŃBA!

Comment: The article's author User:Szczeszek2035 has posted aggressive comments on my Talk page, linked to this nomination[2], basically a WP:PA. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: kashmīrī How would you feel if your article would get deleted and it takes a third of a year for someone decent clearly not you to review and publish a page.You are just a heartless ignorant human. Your probably not even from Poland. You have no right to make yourself the victim of “abuse”. I have the right to be angry as it will be 4 months before someone decent reviews my article. HAŃBA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Szczeszek2035 (talk • contribs) 09:58, October 28, 2020 (UTC)Striking a WP:NPA violation and leaving a warning at editors' talk page. Frutration is no excuse for rudeness. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, article needs citation and more information. Alex-h (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, As no-one wants to keep the article on wikipedia for it to grow, I will work on it in draft space and hopefully have it more detailed as time goes on. Szczeszek2035
Delete per nom with no prejudice to draftification for improvements. --KartikeyaS (talk) 19:15, 4 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Estrella Falls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I know there was a recent kerfuffle about malls AND this is a 2nd nom (12 years post-NC), but there is truly no evidence this mall is notable. Its delayed opening was covered, but it subsequently opened and appears from some photos to be a non-descript strip mall. StarM 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. StarM 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First off, a note that the "Market at Estrella Falls" strip mall linked by @Star Mississippi: is a different development from just Estrella Falls proper, so some distinction is needed here:
- If Estrella Falls as a whole had opened, then the entire complex would certainly be notable as a massive multi-use complex. In that case, a description of the adjacent Market would be suitable for inclusion even if it's seen as a separate entity.
- Since Estrella Falls has not been built other than a theater, the development as a whole falls under a similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mall at Oyster Bay or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trillium Circle, where little to no no subequent coverage was given after the initial proposal.
- The "Market at Estrella Falls" is, again, a separate project from "Estrella Falls" proper. As a strip mall, Market less likely to have any notability on its own, and indeed, has not even gotten the most basic of coverage one usually finds in such developments.
tl;dr: Two different properties with similar names and the same developer, neither one is notable, but for different reasons. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that clarification, TPH. StarM 15:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - not a single allegation of notability much less any evidence it exists. Many malls are proposed, start construction, and go under. Their own website is 404. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment @Bearian: it is my, possibly wrong, understanding that if something has survived AfD, it's ineligible for speedy. StarM 00:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As stated above, the complex has not been built, only some individually NN parts. But there has been ongoing coverage of the failure of the project to be developed, better uses of the site, etc. Even proposed or failed project can be worthy of articles if there is enough coverage to meet GNG. There seems to be some coverage over a 10-year period. @TenPoundHammer: have you seen these? MB 20:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's rethink Estrella Falls mall in Goodyear in 2015
Will West Valley get planned malls? Answers scarce
Harkins Opening $14M Theater in Goodyear Next Week
No shopping mall … but Goodyear moving closer to new city hall
Cleveland investor buys retail center, land adjacent to regional mall site in Goodyear for $49.1 million
Malls are evolving so why not in the West Valley?
Will West Valley Get Planned Malls? Answers Scarce
Goodyear can find better use for prime mall property
This retailer is expanding to the West Valley
Harkins plans new megaplex movie theater in Goodyear

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see more discussion on the sources listed by MB, and whether the coverage of the mall's "development hell" can be shown to meet WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andaala Amitabh Bachchan[edit]

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

Minor film with no reliable sources or reviews at all. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reviews; fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 19:31, 1 November 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) 06:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Wharepouri[edit]

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

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league. No international games according to Soccerway. Geschichte (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all and sources are not reliable. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it looks like she's a rugby league player now. It doesn't look like she achieved enough coverage for WP:GNG in her football career. If someone can find some good secondary coverage for her rugby career, I'll happily vote keep Spiderone 21:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 22:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason I already gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Fimmano. Her league is the top league in her country. Insisting that only a "fully professional" league should count, whatever that is supposed to mean, imposes a biased double standard in which nothing a women does is considered good enough, while men are still considered notable by playing only one professional game. That standard is bigoted and wrong. We should either keep this article as someone who reached the highest available pinnacle of her sport, or get rid of NSPORT and consider all athletes properly under GNG on an individual basis, not starting by nominating only womens-league athletes. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there do not appear to be any secondary sources covering her with more than a passing mention; I'm happy to be proved wrong so please ping me if sources do come to light Spiderone 08:46, 31 October 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. Could draftify, but then the draft would probably lay stale until at least next summer. Can recreate if/when he plays on a higher level. Geschichte (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Mujanić[edit]

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

The Danish second division is not fully-pro so this player fails WP:NFOOTBALL and the article fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - most of the coverage is run of the mill (see [3] [4] [5]) but there are some sources that seem to be a bit more than that like Fotboll Skanalen and Aftonbladet, the latter of which is fairly in-depth, albeit an interview. All of the sources covering him appear to be reliable. Would suggest either keep or draftify. Spiderone 11:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG (not convinced by sources found, sorry) and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable, not convinced by the demonstrated sources, will be a clear WP:CRYSTAL if he develops into a consistent professional, not draftifying because it's unclear when this will happen. SportingFlyer T·C 11:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with proposer and SportingFlyer. Acabashi (talk) 10:10, 1 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garush Hambardzumyan[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:GNG, nor WP:NSOLDIER (commander of a platoon). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly fails WP:SOLDIER. With respect to GNG, there are a couple of short profiles cited. Why are these not considered WP:RS/WP:IS?— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The posthumous award would make him notable, I assume it's similar to the Purple Heart the Americans give to theirs wounded in battle. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Purple Heart winners don't meet notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 00:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Killed serving his country and received a low-level award. While no doubt meterious in service, there are a vast number of non-notable people who fit that description and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Meets neither WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSOLDIER. --KartikeyaS (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSOLDIER. scope_creep^Talk 20:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milos Andric[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No SIGCOV in English or Norwegian, sources have no mention or incidental mention, claims to nobility unsubstantiated. Rogermx (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see much of a claim of notability, other than the statement, "Andric was one of the first to start exclusive round the world tours on specially designed jets all first class, long haul, jets." which seems like quite a reach considering Pan Am started offering regularly-scheduled around the world tours in 1947. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Got some money together and started a company seems to be his claim to fame. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find coverage about him as a person in Norwegian media. World Travellers went bankrupt though, and there were some lawsuits in its wake; the cases got a bit of coverage in the financial press. The claim made in the article about Brova makes little sense to me. Geschichte (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, PR Devokewater (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- In the absence of searching through Norwegian sources, there's no claim to notability and coverage in the three sources uses is minimal. I'd consider none of them sufficient for the purposes of demonstrating notability. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:07, 30 October 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Nelson[edit]

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

Mountains of unreliable/promotional coverage, but it seems the only reliable sources are either non-significant blurbs or non-independent interviews. Thus, I don't think he meets GNG. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A bunch of interviews in WP:RS/WP:IS constitute WP:SIGCOV. Being interviewed by a RS/IS makes the subject notable. The issue of interviews being primary sources is with respect to factual information. So, can the interviews be cited as sources of facts? No. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CEO of a major software company, he's had some coverage in good sources, not just Forbes. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have plenty written about him in many sources. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From what I can tell, he meets GNG. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaali Khuhi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM; unreleased, referenced with a few promo pieces in the press that all say "look, a trailer", with no significant coverage online in WP:RS. Draft was declined for the same reason. WP:TOOSOON at best. Captain Calm (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: definitely WP:TOOSOON. At best it can have a mention on relevant filmography sections of the artists. ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep film will be released in 5 days. How is that Too soon? Too soon applies to films that have barely begun production. This film is completed and about to be released. Rationale is wrong IMV. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Having a Netflix premiere is hardly notable, not much is written about the film itself. It's a film. A horror film. Not in English. Why is it important? What makes it stand out? Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CSD:A9: While not outright spam like the previous AFDs I participated in, the only sources I could find for this film was a few promotional YT videos and an IMDB page, which is hardly a reliable source. If no reliable sources cover it, it doesn't belong here. The one and only 4thfile4thrank {talk} 01:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Now released, weakly passes WP:NFO because covered by more than a dozen full length reviewers. Some are here and here (regional language site). Also has been reviewed by 8 critics on RT. 1.186.171.37 (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comment from IP above; sufficient reviews and coverage Spiderone 19:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the film has now been released and has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reviews by eight professional critics for publications such as First Post and Hindustan Times linked at Rotten Tomatoes so that WP:NFILM is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:05, 1 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Teacher[edit]

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

Since this movie is extremely obscure, and information about it only appears on IMDb and Korean web portals, I'm guessing the only way this would meet WP:NF is if the claim, present in the earliest version of the article, that this was the first film released on VHS is true. However, after hours of digging, I can't find a single reliable source for this claim which dates to before the creation of the article. Every website and newspaper article about it that I can find, including the one cited in the article, dates after the article's creation. In fact, if you check the cited website, its source is "Google." And a Google search alone is probably not a reliable source. The first version of this article only includes an external link to the IMDb page and no other sources. If IMDb has a page edit history, I have no idea how to access it even with an account, so at this time, I cannot confirm or refute that the "VHS" claim was on IMDb before the creation of the Wikipedia article. Regardless, it would not surprise me if this claim originated on Wikipedia, and if so, then it's a hoax claim that has been spread on the internet for 13 years and made it into international newspapers, and it needs to be addressed immediately. I'm not even entirely convinced that this is a real film, honestly. The Korean Wikipedia article about the film was created over a decade after the English language version, and it doesn't cite any sources or even mention the "VHS" claim. Its external links are as follows: two Korean web portals (one of which apparently includes user-generated content), a website which openly states it gets content from the aforementioned web portals, and a dead link. The movie poster seems legit, as I can find a higher-resolution version than the one on WP which dates to 2004 via Google Reverse Image Search, but since I cannot speak Korean or Mandarin, I can't say for sure that this poster is for the same movie discussed in the Wikipedia article. Bottom line: I have yet to find a compelling reason why we should keep this page, and if we must, then the "VHS" claim needs a citation that dates before the creation of the article. Otherwise, this is nothing more than an obscure 1970s Korean drama film that nobody would remember otherwise. And perhaps it's even less than that. AnAbandonedMall (talk) 13:20, 19 October 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 October 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have posted a message at the Japanese Wikipedia in hopes that someone in Japan can help find a better source as to what the first movie released on VHS was. IMDb does not have publicly available page histories; the closest we can get are past versions on the Internet Archive, but the versions available for this film's IMDb page don't go back far enough to be helpful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources that claim this was the first film released on VHS are not great, but they do exist, and I haven't found any sources that suggest that a different movie was the first to be released on VHS. If better sources are found that call this claim into question, the film can be re-nominated for deletion at a later date. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one has yet managed to find any information whatsoever from independent sources, so I don't think there's much we can write in the article here. Delete. 16:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Yabunirami (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. While IMDb is acceptable as an "External link" we cannot at present consider consulting it as a reliable source for information, especially concerning notability. We then look at the sources on the article and seeking sources according to WP:BEFORE. We give a lot of latitude in attempts to keep articles but when notability is challenged, especially when names of living people (ex. Se-hie Yun) are involved, then questionable sources provided (certainly dead links) and an inability for sources to be presented, does not mean we should just keep waiting for what may not be possible, since the article has been tagged since 2015 because it only has one source. Otr500 (talk) 22:31, 3 November 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) 06:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Houssam Abiad[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. A local council member in Australia. Councils in Australia have little power, eg organising rubbish collection, maintaining suburban parks etc not health and education. Local businessman who is on a few local business committees. Article is also very spammy, and most of the content was added by Gamcmillan (talk · contribs) and Avabiad (talk · contribs) who have basically no other edits. Avabiad put in the edit summary that the contents were approved by the subject's PR folks Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Puff piece. Lots of info given, only 2 sources when you get about half-way through the article. Last source is facebook. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not satisfy WP:BIO. Normally, mayors are not considered significant, let alone councillors. Teraplane (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Google news brings up many more sources. But this article as it stands contains a lot of unsourced material and needs lot's of improvements. If the creator is reading, maybe they can improve it. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on the SIGNIFICANT cleanup I have done to produce an appropriate article based on WP:IRSs. Cabrils (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is a precedent for why a member in third-level legislature (a local council), also noting that in Australia, councils don't run the whole metro area but just a district. Now he is a bureaucrat Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I'd keep in mind that this is a city council so much more likely to be notable than a suburban council. I can see some Deputy Lord Mayors of cities in Australia have their own Wikipedia article. Having said that, I think this article struggles to meet GNG after the PR links and content were removed. Deus et lex (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I agree, once the article is stripped back to what are legitimate IRSs (as I have none done) it seems very thin and probably doesn't satisfy WP:NOT. Cabrils (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Kahle[edit]

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

Apart from the external links that I've just added to link to the subject's research works, I have been unsuccessful in finding third-party RS covering the subject and his works, apart from routine PR mentions, so it may be worth re-evaluating the subject's notability. Infogapp1 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Infogapp1 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I get the notability angle, but I think it's a pity to remove an article when it's correct for no other reason than because you can't find much info about the person, in this case. We can find some, but not much. Since we're talking about Google being the measure of a man here, and Google premieres current information, then we have to remove a lot of people (and other topics) as time goes along since they might not be in the zeitgeist at that particular time. We have room on Wikipedia, don't we? That might go against Wikipedia's general guidelines, but hey.. they are "just" guidelines and "Be Bold" is also a guideline! -- Henriok (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No inline references, poorly sourced. Ok so he's designed some computer chips. Where are the mentions in PC Mag, Wired or other long standing sources. I would expect to see mentions in IEEE-related journals if he's that notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No good sources are given in the article. A google search does not reveal any sources that indicate he might meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. He might perhaps meet WP:ARCHITECT #3 but I'd like to see some actual third-party evidence about his role in developing these IBM products. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:21, 27 October 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Bye[edit]

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

In no way passes CREATIVE notability guidelines. There are references given so PROD/BLP was rejected, but all of the references given are passing mentions of Bye as the video creator and there is no SIGCOV of Bye as a person. Paul ❬talk❭ 11:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 11:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping, Yngvadottir --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He draws fancy maps and has lots of followers on youtube. Has he given presentations at conferences? He's good at what he does, but so are a zillion other guys. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 26 October 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folkhemmet i Hofors-Torsåker[edit]

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

Tiny political party without significant coverage other than local newspapers. General information about elections should go in the Hofors page. Geschichte (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2020-09 Alliance Party (Sweden) Procedural close

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. Geschichte (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Stair[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP. Nightvour (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nightvour (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Nightvour (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the shortwave broadcast niche in 2020 is small, this guy's show continues to be broadcast daily to an international audience (e.g., on WBCQ), and it thus seems to provide him with a certain notability. Additionally, and as evidenced on the current page, his criminal behavior over the years also seems notable, as it has been reported in several independent, reliable sources. The current article, however, would certainly benefit from a considerable amount of pruning. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy is all over the place on shortwave. Even though it is a niche audience, he is very notable in the space, perhaps the single most notable individual at the moment. Pietrus69 (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not my cup of tea, but seems to be well-established as a broadcaster with many sources provided. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He has received a lot of coverage in sources. Maybe not as notable as he once was, but definitely notable. Keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Concur with all comments above. Stair has been broadcasting since at least the mid-'80s, and the outreach is worldwide in scope. The subject meets notability standards, and the article exceeds all standards for being adequately referenced. Propose close. - JGabbard (talk) 12:25, 28 October 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. Or at best no consensus. By and large editors here think that even if the extensive coverage of this person is in fact based on PR materials, the acceptance of such material by and integration into the reporting of reliable media sources resolves the problem, since it's not normally our job to second-guess the reporting process of reliable sources. Sandstein 12:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Zukerman[edit]

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

Pure PR, as usual in this field. Much of this is her own personal views on her own life and career, and that's what you'll find in the references also. Getting such stuff published is what high-grade Press agents do (making the polite assumption she didnt write it herself, directly or indirectly). WP at least should be resistant. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pure PR? I went to an event to take pictures (which I have no connection to), saw that we didn't have an article about one of the people who was there (and to whom I have no connection), saw that she was notable (profile in Elle, coverage of the founder elsewhere, talk of the rivalry, profile in Jewish Journal...), and created a short article. @DGG: and you tagged it with COI? Based on what evidence? here are all of the edits made since my original version. Either the entire basis for a COI tag is in those edits (I've just removed the unsourced line about the memoir), in which case you should've just reverted back, or you're saying that I have a COI. There are what? 2-3 sentences of "her own personal views", all of which cite independent publications. I'm aware that press agents can get things published in high places, but we've pretty well decided that e.g. New York Times, Business Insider, etc. are reliable sources by default, so if they're not calling it promotional content and if there's no evidence that it is, there's no justification to throw them out. Look, it's no fun to defend a short meh article I wrote in a couple hours a few years ago, but there's just no reason to delete it. It's not "pure PR" and the subject is notable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even just looking at the first page of Google News, there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. While I have no doubt that some sources might have been paid for, as per Rhododendrites, there's no way that some of these reputable media sources would put a promotional article up without some sort of disclaimer. Even the Daily Mail puts a disclaimer up when they run a promo piece! Spiderone 16:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The New York Times, Vox and Business Insider are reliable sources that don't print articles that are solely based on PR agents' suggestions. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No source is reliable for everything. The NYT is reliable by default, means it's reliable unless there's evidence otherwise. Go read the article there aretell me if you really think it's not a PR interview. I wouldn't say the times prints articles solely on the PR agents suggestions, but it does influence them. Andthe real test is the content. PR is PR no matter who wrote it. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the NYT article. It involves a lot of independent reporting, and interviews with multiple people. There is criticism and praise on both sides. It's not PR. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete All the coverage on the article is press-releases, dependent sources or primary in the form of the odd interview. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Lets go through the first page of Google News, today on the 26 October 2020.

[6]. A smiling face. A press-release and non-rs.

[7] Another picture of her smiling directly at the camera. A press-release. Non-rs.

[8] amNewYork spoke with Zukerman about her book. More PR. Dependent source.

[9] Another picture. An amalgamation of other PR.

[10] Another picture. Photo courtesy of Ruth Zukerman More PR.

[11] An interview. A dependent source.

[12] Same picture as above, looking straight into the camera. An interview. A dependent source.

[13] A proper story, but a passing mention. Not in-depth.

[14] Passing mention.

[15] Passing mention.

The rest are pretty much the same after that point. Lots of passing mentions. No-one is saying that is no coverage. There is tons of coverage, but it is all been generated by her, often using the three pictures. scope_creep^Talk 13:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you assessing the current top 10 results at Google News instead of looking at the article? There's a New York Times piece here: "In New York, a Rivalry Shifts Into High Gear". Can you account for that? — Toughpigs (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange rhetorical exercise. A strong delete based on an analysis of sources like Forbes Contributors (i.e. actual PR) that nobody has argued should be included in order to argue that the coverage is PR.... and then stopping after one page. You might as well argue why we shouldn't cite Wikipedia or the company website, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find this "I know it when I see it" approach to defining/identifying PR rather problematic sometimes. There are sources which publish press releases and sponsored content. We shouldn't be using those sources, especially if they don't identify paid content as such. Otherwise, if we've evaluated a source's editorial policy to be sound, there's no getting away from the fact that they're going to pull from provided materials to form a story. It happens for basically every subject, not just businesspeople. What matters is that the material is subject to the fact-checking/evaluation/judgment the sources are known for. If a source with a sound editorial policy decides to publish a profile of someone, who are you (the abstract you) to say "but *I* know that it secretly is PR material". That's too far into OR for me. Like, yeah, some small site we're not all that familiar with should be treated with skepticism, but a profile in, say, Elle, or coverage in the NYT or Vox -- that's just what makes someone/something notable. I don't see why we would treat claims that it seems like PR in a publication we've decided is reliable for not confusing PR with real stories as anything more than WP:JDLI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely endorse this, in the context of this AfD and generally. I've seen this "it must be PR" line of argument quite a bit at AfD of late, and I do not understand the grounds for it. If an article in an otherwise reputable source like Forbes says "special to" or "contributor", that is evidence of PR placement. But baseless intuition is not, and we should not give credence to such arguments. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She seems significant in the indoor cycling world. She has a number of good sources including Elle, NY Times, and this Forbes (not listed yet) and this MSN Money interview.Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Forbes contributors are not reliable sources FYI (WP:FORBESCON). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I will still stick to my keep vote, regardless, due to other coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:31, 29 October 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wade (Trafalgar Park)[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable, promotional, not mentioned by reliable sources, possibly self created GPinkerton (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GPinkerton (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Whelan[edit]

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

As usual in this field, every reference here is PR. What makes a good Press agent is the ability to get plausible sounding stories in major publications. I hope we're not as easily fooled as the conventional media. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably just enough to warrant an article. She was featured on BBC News not too long ago. I would say this article isn't PR and the circumstances of her departure from SoulCycle seems to be controversial and, again, not PR as they don't paint her in a good light (see just one example). She has featured in many leading publications including Financial Times, Vogue and New York Magazine. She is also receiving coverage after stepping down from CEO, such as this. Spiderone 16:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there's plenty of WP:SIGCOV in independent WP:RS. I'm not sure what the nom means by "in this field" (women in business?) and I don't see an issue with the sources that have been presented in the existing article (Baltimore Sun, CNN, Forbes, etc.) or above by Spiderone as being PR-like. The article should be updated to reflect her ouster from SoulCycle. This certainly doesn't look like PR, for example. Nor does this. Marquardtika (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see her as a sub-section or an few lines in the SoulCyle article, not notable on her own. Oaktree b (talk)

"In this field" means articles on executives of organizations, both commercial and noncommercial. I try to deal myself primarily with the ones from educational institutions, where the articles on newly appointed presidents are 90% coi, and about 95% promotional, because even the non-coi editors tend to write according to what they see here. There are many more such articles for heads of commercial organizations, and I can't deal with them all, so I concentrate on the worst, and the ones written in conjuction with articles on the firms. Currently most of such articles are about men, but as women increase their share of the roles as ought to be the case, there is no reason to expect any the less promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources in the article and linked above. New York Times, CNN, BBC ... these are not the kind of sources you can just decide are PR because of the field of the subject. FWIW not opposed to a Merge, either, since the coverage all seems connected to SoulCycle. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Non-notable C-level employee. She's worked here, and here, and here. Almost seems to be a Linkedin summary Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have already said delete, above. Geschichte (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Not a very complete article, but she appears to have a reasonable amount of coverage. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per above. VocalIndia (talk) 18:18, 2 November 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vlade Kay[edit]

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

It appears to be too soon for an article on this performer. The first five sources used in the article (as of today) are brief introductory interviews or new release announcements that are probably reprinted press releases. He has some brief onstage performances at larger events, but his own releases have not generated media interest and the rest of the article is dependent on streaming service entries. Little more can be found under either his stage name or birth name. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 01:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 01:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 01:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WSN Insight[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for products. Previously PRODed, but PROD was removed by the article creator. Article on parent company was already deleted. See also WP:NSOFTWARE. – Teratix ₵ 05:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 05:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am finding no evidence of notability. There is not even close to enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bergas Bästa – partipolitiskt obunden lista[edit]

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

Tiny political party without significant coverage other than local newspapers. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hyperlocal only with few votes or coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Movement for the Good of Borlänge[edit]

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

Tiny political party without significant coverage other than local newspapers. Geschichte (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even in the Swedish WP -- the interlanguage link goes to its name on a list of all political parties in the country. Never fielded a candidate who won an election. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It might be WP:TOOSOON, but WP:CRYSTAL. does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. // Timothy :: talk 14:45, 2 November 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 draftify. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sully Wong[edit]

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

May just squeak past WP:NCORP with [16] and a few passing mentions elsewhere, although that piece is not clearly independent. Otherwise, not seeing notability. Tagged since 2013 with apparently minimal improvement, so would be nice to decide this one way or another. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to George Sully as it fails WP:NCORP Although I found coverage in an article [17] and that it was nominated twice at the Canadian Arts and Fashion Awards [18] [19] I could not find other significant coverage. I think this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON and keeping it at George Sully will preserve the information until it's notable enough for its own article. Z1720 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Sully. This from Ottawa Citizen is entirely based on an interview with no Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, unclear what to do now that George Sully has been moved to Draft:George Sully … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Draft:George Sully and it is currently pending review at WP:AfC. If George Sully is accepted then I would change my !vote here to redirect.Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as with Draft:George Sully. Would need a bit of work, and then it can go through AfC. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References which are run of the mill business news, don't support an article as it currently stands. scope_creep^Talk 15:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - inline with the George Sully article. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify why not? Just as long as the article doesn't remain in it's current place. Since, clearly it shouldn't. Drafting it is fine though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: As an alternate to deletion. I agree with the other like !votes. Since Draft:George Sully, is a draft, I can't see merging or redirecting there. Otr500 (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 22:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Darren Ng Wei Jie[edit]

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

Like many brutal crimes, this one has received its fair share of news coverage. However, I fail to see how the coverage gets it past WP:NOTNEWS or WP:NCRIME. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. i dont agree with you. it was quite brutal and got quite large media attention. if you check the NEWSPAPERSG, you will find nearly a 100 eng language newspaper articles reporting the case. i think it was because the citing of number of sources was what makes you think is reason for deletion but i respectfully point out to you that it should not be deleted since it is quite a notable one that captured a lot of public attention at that time. NelsonLee20042020, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Search?ST=1&AT=advanced&K=darren%20ng%20wei%20jie%20downtown%20east%20&KA=darren%20ng%20wei%20jie%20downtown%20east%20&DF=30%2F10%2F2010&DT=31%2F12%2F2012&Display=0&NPT=&L=English&CTA= here is my proof if you dont beileve me besides, the Straits Times published a paperback book detailing the 25 most shocking crimes in Singapore, which included this case at Downtown East. It is not available on the online version, but it is available in the print edition of the book itself.

to be honest speaking, i dont know why is it not available on the online version, because the online version of the book got 24 crimes recorded in it, it is obvious they left out one crime, and i know it is the Downtown East ncident since i read the book before and i know it.

Keep - Notable enough for Wikipedia, even in Europe this case is pretty well known. Inexpiable (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. In Norwegian media, for instance, the case has never been mentioned once. I think the article fails to explain why the event, an incident of gang violence, is notable or has a cultural endurance. The "reactions" section pertains to his family, as well as the "reaction" from the victim's neighbour which can't be described as anything but puffing up the article. Geschichte (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Didnt you see that there is a section saying about how the public reacted to the case? That time, it was said that the feelings of the public run high and many were horrified by the violence expressed, especially to those who witnessed the killing (including young children). The government also took steps to manage the risk of youths joining gangs by introducing programmes and legislations. Since Inexpiable said that the case was known in Europe, and Geschichte said it is not reported in Norwegian, the case must have been reported somewhere else in Europe and Geschichte is not in the area where the case was reported; no offence here, Geschichte. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 25 October 2020, at 13:35 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll have to agree with NelsonLee20042020, the murder was quite brutal and it has significant news coverage. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even after ten years, it is still getting coverage. Has had an impact not only back then, but also now. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The gang attack and murder had been significant enough for public attention, as well as subsequent Government intervention the following year. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 29 October 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 find the arguments countering the single keep comment persuasive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NEM (cryptocurrency)[edit]

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

Notability not established, only reliable sources are Japan Times and Wired, and they only cover it in their isolated pieces. The Japan Times piece is just reporting on a crime, and it doesn't provide any citable in-depth coverage of NEM. The Wired piece relies on statements by people involved in NEM, and Wired is a pop magazine, they cannot be trusted to verify claims about distributed consensus. The Forbes source is a blog, it cannot be cited. Sources must be satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, but they don't. See also the arguments of the previous deletion debate. Ysangkok (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Linking the previous delation debate in question. Jumpytoo Talk 01:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV - deprecated sources like blogs, white papers, and Forbes. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment probably Wikipedia:Too soon --Devokewater (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Devokewater: by which metric is it too soon? There is no more activity the repos of NanoWallet, nem.core, NEMiOSApp, NEMAndroidApp, nem-lightwallet. How can it be too soon if they are no longer developing the code? --Ysangkok (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per reasons in the previous AfD. A few of the sources in the article seem to be reliable. I also found a few reliable sources about it: [20], [21], [22] and [23]. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: How is securities.io, which invites you to partner with them (pay-to-publish), reliable? Why is btcmanager.com more reliable than say bitcoinmagazine.com, which we do not allow? Also, please respond to the questions for you I posted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PotCoin. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are not RSes, and so do not substantiate the claims of RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 27 October 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. Opted not to redirect as I don't see a mention of Sabueso Cántabro at the Sabueso Espanol article, but no objection to someone integrating the name and making a redirect, assuming that's sourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabueso Cántabro[edit]

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

This is not a recognised dog breed, at most a regional variant of the Sabueso Español. It is not sufficiently WP:NOTABLE for a stand-alone article – no relevant hits on Gnews, no verifiable hit on Gbooks, no non-circular hit on Scholar. Redirection has twice been attempted (once by me), and has both times been reverted by the creator of the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete, completely fails GNG, I have searched at length for sources for these dogs and found nothing. Cavalryman (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The same editor created the article on Spanish Wikipedia the day before creating it on this one, and with but one source - its breed association. Another sad case of a group of breeders that have a "different and rare" dog for you to purchase priced at a premium. William Harris (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sabueso Español, as a plausible search term.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:03, 29 October 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) 22:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intergalactic War (Blake's 7)[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terran Federation (Blake's 7); being failure of WP:ALLPLOT and WP:WAF. It's a fictional war written without sources of real-world consequence. Geschichte (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no secondary sources showing real world notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shouldn't even be a question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omniscientmoose42 (talk • contribs)
Delete: Pure WP:FANCRUFT that clearly fails WP:NFICTION and GNG. Nothing is referenced outside a single sentence, so nothing seems mergeable anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of WP:ALLPLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:GNG. There's no real world significance cited to reliable third party sources. Jontesta (talk) 00:16, 29 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Hearts (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a film. And has a plot summary... Was it direct to video or did it have nation-wide distribution? How much money did it make? Nothing to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of sourced content from reliable sources including two reviews so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:18, 3 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar (2015 film)[edit]

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

The movie doesn’t seem to satisfy any criterion from WP:NFOE as an alternative for movies who don’t meet NFOE, WP:GNG is used to judge a movies notability, following that the movie also does not have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to warrant a standalone. This source is great but is not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This could really use a going over by someone who can access more Nigeria sources, as I believe that American search engines like Google don't properly crawl websites from this country, akin to how it doesn't for India. I'm finding evidence that the film is likely notable since it's been described as a popular film in places like this, which calls it an "international blockbuster". I'm just not sure if it's all puffery or if there's some truth to it. It does seem to have received quite a bit of attention prior to its release via the announcement of performers and whatnot, plus it starred some notable people. I'm not saying it's inheriting notability, just that I'd be surprised if there wasn't more coverage than what Google is bringing up for me. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @ReaderofthePack, honestly their just isn’t sources discussing it asides the one I mentioned in my rationale. I’ve lived in Nigeria 20+ years & can tell notable from non notable. Furthermore, we have a host of Nigerian movies, examples are; Sugar Rush (2019 film), King of Boys, Omugwo, Bling Lagosians, I literally can mention over a 100 Nigerian movies(not a hyperbole) that are notable & satisfy WP:NFILM & WP:GNG, this particular one unfortunately isn’t one of them. I did a deep web search & still couldn’t come with anything tangible. You might have noticed this source right? That’s another source I found but it was in PulseNG a Source which has been deprecated. Celestina007 (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where has Pulse NG been deprecated, it wasn't at the reliable sources noticeboard ? and it has been used by many editors including yourself Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306, I doubt you have any experience with Nigerian reliable sources & justifiably so, I mean, you haven’t lived in Nigeria for 20+ years. You are correct I optimized the source in the past long before it was proven to be an unreliable one, how? You may ask, the reason is more often than not they do not explicitly state which is a sponsored post & which isn’t. Celestina007 (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-@Vee.m.likunama, Well its true that SuperStar didn't get as much notice, I live in Tanzania and the reason why I did create the article, its because the movie was and is listed as WikiProjects AfroCine Wikipedia[24] .Articles that need to created or Improved.Maybe to could be added as a stub for sometime for improvements if there's someone else from Nigeria who could help with more reable sources. Because most sources are available are not notable or for this matter cannot be considered as reliable sources by the Wikipedia resources.
Hi Celestina007 - sorry about that, I thought you were in the states like I am! If you've searched and couldn't find sources, then there has to be nothing else out there. It's a delete on my end then. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the abundantly clear unbiased rationale of the Nom. The comments from this editor, clearly close enough to the subject geographically to offer that the search results performed would be less biased than any searches initiated from the United States, which did not produce reliable sources on my end. I believe, with confidence, that a nomination resulted after a "Before" (specifically according to D- 1 and 2), was performed with negative results. Otr500 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 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 Louie Louie#Cover versions. Consensus is that we don't want this level of detail, but opinions are split between merge and delete. Redirection is a compromise that allows merging of any relevant content from the history to the extent that editorial consensus allows for it. Sandstein 06:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Louie discography[edit]

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

Wildly indiscriminate. Violates WP:LSC - As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. Many, many entries are sourced only to Youtube videos, often with under 100 views - it's debatable whether they qualify as bands. The topic of covers of Louie Louie is sufficiently discussed on that article's page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are subpages containing the actual list entries:

Merge (along with its subpages -- are you kidding me, there's four of them). I cannot think of any song that has four subpages to list every single time it's been covered. Greensleeves? Jingle Bells? House of the Rising Sun? WP:NOT a directory, and there's no way that all of these entries meet notability requirements. jp×g 05:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of the more notable examples into Louie Louie. This got taken way too far. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not merge, because those passing WP:SONGCOVER are already there, including a surfeit that need culling. This is not what WP is about as stated by the nominator, but it is still a shame to support User:Relbats's good work for deletion. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Principal author here. I started out cataloging "Louie Louie" (hereafter LL) versions to answer two common questions posed by music researchers and rock historians: "What is the most recorded rock song?" and "How many versions of LL are there?". That being said, apologies if I've gone a bit overboard in pursuit of completeness! I relied on guidance from the Stand-alone lists section of WP:NOTESAL, specifically that notability is not required for individual list items if the list itself is notable and has been discussed by independent reliable sources (several of which are listed in References and External links sections). However, if the consensus is that including the non-notable versions violates WP:NOT, then I'm willing to do the work to condense the list down to notable versions only -- either as a merge with the main LL article or as something like List of artists who have recorded "Jingle Bells" or List of artists who have covered Bob Dylan songs. Relbats (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Relbats:. As somebody who has worked extensively on the Dylan list, the major differences are that only artists with WP pages with generally significant recordings are included, it is a reference relating to all songs written by Dylan, not just one song, which, for dozen or more songs, could (but really shouldn't) be done the same way as you have done for Louie Louie. As I said in my comment above, the notable recordings are already mentioned in the main article. There have been 2 or more attempts to delete the Jingle Bells list, including an unsuccessful nomination to delete from me. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to the "Cover versions" section of Louie Louie, and then Delete the main discog article and its four sub-pages. This is actually an impressive body of work by Relbats, of great interest to music historians, but I concur that it is not viable for Wikipedia and would be much better suited for a special interest website. I agree with the other voters above on how a list of covers by mostly non-notable people backed up by unreliable links is not appropriate here. However there are a few surprises by notable musicians, which could be used to enhance the song's article. ☆☆☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that more selectivity is needed, i.e., removing non-notable entries. That being said, I think a separate article/discography would still be justified for the many, many notable artist covers. All major artists have separate discography articles because the details would clutter the main article. Ditto for covers of songs by Dylan, Van Morrison and others. And it's worth noting that WP:SONGCOVER doesn't seem to apply in practice to standalone discographies because all works are listed, not just those with innate notability. Bottom line: a separate Louie Louie discography article would permit listing all notable versions without overcluttering (is that a word?) the main article. I want to do what's right here for WP but also align with what I see in other discographies and song listings, i.e., notable versions only in a article linked to the main page. Relbats (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what standard those proposing merge are advocating for. Personally I think we should keep the discography page and merge any version which is notable itself or done by a notable group from the four subpages. We also don't need multiple listings by the same group (e.g. a studio and a live version listed separately). My reason for keeping the discography page is that the Louie Louie article is already pretty long and even a selective merge could be enough to push that page into a place where it would need a SPLIT. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete, per nom. This does seem like a rather indiscriminate collection of every instance when this particular song was recorded. At best, keep the main page and selectively merge the truly notable instances (i.e., those in which the cover has charted or received independent coverage beyond a passing mention of its existence) into that. BD2412 T 20:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please close this AfD soon? I feel there is enough consensus to Merge and only little consensus to Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It is impossible to merge it into the other article. Current total version count: 4610 So just replaced it with a redirect, and preserve the article history. Dream Focus 17:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the most notable versions into Louie Louie. I checked out one subpage and while it's all an incredible job by User:Relbats, the majority are by non-notable artists, plus WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Definitely don't delete so it can be preserved. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Wow! A lot of work. I would like some clarification. We are discussing merging and redirecting to preserve the history. This is what seems to be many hundreds of links to Youtube, images from Discog, youtube, Amazon, SoundCloud, and no telling where else. With all due respect, it would take an equally exhaustive pile of work to check all these references. We can assume all the faith available but youtube should be used with caution because of possible copyright issues, and this would be more so just for inclusion as an external link, so would be (it would seem) far more critical as a reference. I would think many instances would fail our most basic sourcing policies and guidelines. I would not dream of tackling a source review but know we have certain policies and guidelines that indicate there could be possible violations. Looking over WP:YOUTUBE, Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites and Wikipedia:Copyrights, it does appear this list lands in the middle of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia:Video links has more views than many of these videos but the bottom line is: Can we blanket accept that every link has been verified not to be copyright violations or that can be used according to fair use, Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria? This is 40 steps up from allowing or accepting some "occasional use" where links have been checked. If there are only a couple of concerns I think some caution should be advised and certainly deserving some discussion. Otr500 (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why would you have static list that continually needs updated, particularly when software e.g. a browser add-in or a custom search engine could generate the list for you, on the fly. It a large unstructured list with little encyclopedic content. So what they covered it? So what. I'm struggling to identify somebody who could actually use the information. Looking at the source article Louie Louie it does a reasonably decent job of describing how well it is covered and by who, without listing every band under the sun. Delete this article, the lists, which are no use to anybody. scope_creep^Talk 12:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above discussion. Sachin.cba (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems like a good Fandom article but here its a catalog/directory WP:WWIN. The notable covers are already on the main article. The size of the list compared with the notable items it contains make it less than useful for navigation, so I don't believe WP:CLN would apply. // Timothy :: talk 14:38, 2 November 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) 22:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Bisaria[edit]

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

The person fails WP:NPOL and references are mere mentions of the person and lacks WP:GNG ~ Amkgp 💬 15:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. vice chairperson of social media for the student wing of a political party, with no significant coverage in RS. Captain Calm (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing inclusion in Wikipedia, but the sourcing is not solid enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass any SNGs. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage in RS. - Tatupiplu'^talk 20:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Person is notable links are enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blabragram (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: afd (talk • contribs) Blabragram is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
delete the national vice chairman for social media is not a notable position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls well short of WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. -Hatchens (talk) 17:34, 30 October 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) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Ford, Kentucky[edit]

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

The Kentucky Hometown Locator is essentially just a GNIS mirror, so it's not useful as a source. The topographic maps show a literal ford, marked in a different font used to mark fords and such. Newspapers.com brings up names and a car dealership. Unable to turn up any significant coverage anywhere. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete obvious map-reading error. Mangoe (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clear negligence, along with several other fords and a pond made by the same person in this county. Reywas92^Talk 20:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: There appear to be a few articles claiming streams to be communities/ghost towns too. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a ford, I can find no evidence of an unincorporated community called 'Harper ford' or 'Harper' in the region. Based on the nearby Harper Cemetery I assume it was named after a family living nearby. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 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. - ping me directly for undeletion if sources are located showing it was a community. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany, Caldwell County, Kentucky[edit]

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

The only Bethany in Caldwell County mentioned in Rennick is a Methodist Church. Pre-1910 topos show a "Bethany School", with two churches but no school. Later topos show a single church there labeled "Bethany Church". Newspapers.com brings up a handful of passing mentions in obituaries stating that the church is hosting a funeral, or that someone was a member of the church. Not finding anything in-depth. Looks to fail WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG, and WP:NCHURCH. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:20, 26 October 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 Kashmiri cuisine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu and Kashmiri cuisine[edit]

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

As per discussion on Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmiri_cuisine#Merger Proposal, creating this AfD. The current page is un-sourced and a weak fork of Kashmiri cuisine. As such, it does not add any encyclopedic information apart from parent page , to warrant a separate page. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per talk page discussion. Captain Calm (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kashmiri cuisine would be much better. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 20:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kashmiri cuisine. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kashmiri cuisine; there's nothing to keep or merge. Lennart97 (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kashmiri cuisine. // Timothy :: talk 14:21, 2 November 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) 22:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slashtag[edit]

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

This article describes one bloggers suggestion of an alternative to hashtags on Twitter. All of the sources in the article are blogs or wikis. A google search does provide results for Slashtag, but these are nearly all referring to the feature of blekko, not Twitter. This fails notability and there is little here worth saving, if anything. JaAlDo (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDICT and nothing worth keeping or merging Spiderone 16:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, WP:NOTDICT, and WP:GNG. Spectacularly fails nearly all tests for encyclopedic inclusion. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than a dictionary entry. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:01, 29 October 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. Withdrawn after new disambiguation entries were found. Sandstein 12:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITZ (disambiguation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ITZ (disambiguation)

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

Orphan disambiguation page whose navigation function is handled by hatnotes. The extraneous entries previously added do not belong on the disambiguation page since the topics are not referred to as "ITZ" (MOS:DABACRONYM. JHunterJ (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

itz is also the ISO 639-3 code of the Itzaʼ language. – Uanfala (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My main source for ITZ meanings came from: https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/ITZ. Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The main (and only) source for Wikipedia disambiguation pages is Wikipedia topic articles (such as Itzaʼ language, which could be added to the hatnotes or to the disambiguation page if kept and moved to Itz (disambiguation)). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inter-Tidal Zone is probably another relevant meaning if one accepts the dash separator which is not presently the case in Intertidal zone (MOS:DABACRO). Shinkolobwe (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If that topic is referred to as "ITZ" by reliable sources, then that information needs to be added to the topic article first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not succeed to find a reliable source for Inter-Tidal Zone. Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
itraconazole (ITZ) an antifungal medication used to treat a number of fungal infections. The abbreviation ITZ is attested by several books on Google Book and publications in Google Scholar. Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- a possible source clearly mentioning the ITZ abbreviation in its abstract: Li, K., Fang, D., Xiong, Z., & Luo, R. (2019). Inhibition of the hedgehog pathway for the treatment of cancer using Itraconazole. OncoTargets and therapy, 12, 6875. https://dx.doi.org/10.2147%2FOTT.S223119 Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added that information to the itraconazole article. Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least 4 valid entries now. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nominator, as currently expanded. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ITZ: also a medical term for intrathecal ziconotide, a powerful antalgic used for treating neuropathic pain and administrated by direct injection into the spinal fluid. See: Mertens, P.; André, B.; Helene, S.; Jacques, L. (2018). "Treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord lesions by intrathecal ziconotide (ITZ)". Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 61: e105. doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2018.05.225. ISSN 1877-0657..
Keep: ITZ search results in ScienceDirect are mainly dominated by the term "Interfacial Transition Zone" extensively used in concrete technology, but rarer uses can sometimes be occasionally encountered a.o. in the medical literature as it is the case for itraconazole and intrathecal ziconotide. Up to now five uses of the ITZ abbreviation have been identified with reliable sources. Shinkolobwe (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to a new search on JSTOR, in the ancient Maya culture itz also refers to a flowing substance of the underworld and heavenly realms that the Maya employ in their shamanistic practices. In the Maya culture and funeral rites, itz is a sacred liquid sustaining living creation and an ingredient by which spiritual connection is made between the world of the gods and mortals. Whereas the word itz can refer in modern Mayan languages to milk, sweat, tears and other excrescences of living origin, more often than not the word refers to a plant exudate (Freidel et al. 1993:411), primarily sap or nectar (Barrera Vàzquez 1980:271–272; Taube 1992).

Consulted reference: McDonald J. Andrew and Stross Brian (2012). Water lily and cosmic serpent: Equivalent conduits of the Maya spirit realm. Journal of Ethnobiology 32(1): 74–107. Spring/Summer 2012. see pp. 98-99 in: https://www.utrgv.edu/biology/_files/documents/publications/amcd5.pdf.

See also: De Ágredos Pascual, M., Lorenzo, C., Campos, P., & Tiesler, V. (2018). Body Colors and Aromatics in Maya Funerary Rites. In De Ágredos Pascual M. & García É. (Eds.), Painting the Skin: Pigments on Bodies and Codices in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (pp. 56-74). Tucson; Mexico City: University of Arizona Press. Retrieved October 30, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvgs09xv.9.

Plus 3 non-consulted references given by McDonald et al. (2012):

Freidel, David, Schele, Linda, and Parker, Joy (1993). Maya Cosmos. Quill, New York.

Barrera Vàzquez, A. (1980). Diccionario Maya Cordemex. Ediciones Cordemex, Merida.

Taube, Karl A. (1992). The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan. Studies in pre-Columbian Art and Archeology, no. 32, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D. C.

This information could be useful for the pages dealing with Maya death rituals or Maya dedication rituals. Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:27, 30 October 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) 22:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Watkinson[edit]

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

This article has existed for 17 years sourced only to the subjects own website. A search on google showed up some other sites that were basically advertising listings for his work, but no subastantive, indepdent, 3rd-party secondary source coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- for what it is worth, the creator of this article made two eidts ever. Besides creating this article his only other contribution to Wikipedia was adding Watkinson to the list of Canadian painters article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am finding nothing online for this artist, no reviews or crititcal/analytical articles, no museum collections, nor mentions in books. It might be an autobiography based on the info above of the single purpose editor + one citation to website judging from the article history. Either way, does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source is a link to his website and it's been there since 2007. He doesn't seem to have done anything notable since then, and before that date it's iffy. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On Newspapers.com I found several one or two sentences on his time as a keyboardist in the band Max Webster. Similarly, there are references to his training as a medical illustrator at the time of later band reunions. Not of it however counts as significant coverage. Curiocurio (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect G12 it as a copyvio of http://terrywatkinson.com/bio/ or revdel the text, then create a redirect to Max Webster. https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Terry+Watkinson&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fterrywatkinson.com%2Fbio%2F Vexations (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually, the website biography was copied from Wikipedia, looking at past versions of the website in Wayback Machine. Curiocurio (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that Watkinson copied his own bio from Wikipedia? There are other explanations. The wayback machine didn't always index every new website immediately. Vexations (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Wikipedia article was close to its current state by 2010, but the biography on his website didn't appear to at least 2015. Curiocurio (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curiocurio, check this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry_Watkinson&diff=next&oldid=108757484&diffmode=source It gives the access date for Watkinson's website. It may have been hosted somewhere else. The whois data for terrywatkinson.com gives Creation Date: 2010-07-27T02:16:40, but the access date in the diff is 16 February 2007. Vexations (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Curiocurio (talk) 13:53, 29 October 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. People disagree about whether this event in an ongoing war has standalone notability. Perhaps this can be reassessed after hostilities are over. Sandstein 12:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 shelling of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Too minor of an event to have a separate article. It was basically copied from the main article. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 12:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rewrite. Meets both WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Meets both WP:GNG and WP:EVENT
- - Depth_of_coverage
  - https://www.dw.com/en/nagorno-karabakh-armenia-claims-cathedral-hit-by-azerbaijan-shelling/a-55209042

- - https://www.rferl.org/a/situation-tense-in-nagorno-karabakh-after-day-of-heavy-fighting-amid-diplomatic-flurry/30881866.html

- - https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-10-08/armenia-says-cathedral-shelled-clashes-azerbaijan

- - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54465172

- - and so on Luckie Luke (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources clearly satisfy GNG; it should be expanded with the content from Ghazanchetsots Cathedral, which, itself, could be trimmed a bit Spiderone 18:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the main article of the Cathedral already has a well written/sourced section about the bombing that can be expanded here with more details.

Background and attack
Damage and human casualties
Reactions
- Armenia
- Azerbaijan
- Foreign (including notable media quotes)
some trivia like this and this can also be put in somewhere.

Overall can be a very nice article with some expansion. Eurofan88 (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliably sourced by major news outlets. Has met basic notability requirements. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#Infrastructure damage, where it's already mentioned. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... or to Ghazanchetsots Cathedral. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable war crime with sources. T8612 (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#Infrastructure damage or Ghazanchetsots Cathedral, not notable and WP:NOTNEWS. I would rate this attack as less significant that the destruction of the Stari Most or the Siege of Dubrovnik Mztourist (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#Infrastructure damage or Ghazanchetsots Cathedral per above. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 07:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#Infrastructure damage or Ghazanchetsots Cathedral per above. The only damage, according to the article, was partial collapse of the roof, with no deaths. Too minor for a standalone article, WP:NOTNEWS. Brandmeister^talk 07:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, heinous and illegal attack on Armenian cultural heritage. Well sourced by international news outlets. GWA88 (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Interfase (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, the information is notable but not as a standalone page. Geschichte (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the article is not especially good but I think it is notable enough to stay. If I had to choose another option, I would choose redirection to Ghazanchetsots Cathedral. I strongly oppose redirecting to 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, that article is getting quite long and we won't be able to merge all the information there. Super Ψ Dro 01:49, 2 November 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) 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OE4 (font format)[edit]

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

No sources, seems like a promotion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is written like an advertisement (egregiously), in a non-encyclopedic tone, bad format. Globg 13:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is written like a technical manual, but I can't understand most of what it is. I don't know how influential this font thing is or how long it's been in use. Why is it different than other font formats? Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 26 October 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 13:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

László Bálint (referee)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; a WP:BEFORE search did not produce any WP:SIGCOV for 'László Bálint' or 'Bálint László'. Please note that László Balint and László Bálint are both different people.

The Hungarian Wikipedia article ([25]) does cite two books but there is no evidence to suggest that they would be more than passing mentions. Spiderone 09:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; referees tend to be non-notable. Giant Snowman 12:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously another one, this fails GNG, someone needs to have a word with Almgerdeu This is verging towards a topic-ban in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, most of the ones that he has created in the last week or so at least have an assertion of notability. This one was just one that survived from an older spree of referee articles that he created where the subject had only officiated one fixture with no obvious notability claim outside of football. Spiderone 12:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guy has an article on Hungarian Wikipedia (link added), though I'm not sure he's notable. (There was an editor on huwiki who created loads of articles on referees, lots of them got deleted since then.) – Alensha ^talk 22:56, 1 November 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 can undelete the history if the draft gets promoted to mainspace Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Look Up (2021 film)[edit]

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

Filming has not begun, per WP:NFF it is too soon for a stand alone article, subject already has a draft at Draft:Don't Look Up (2021 film) BOVINEBOY2008 09:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It will be notable when it gets released. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upcoming film that may not even get made if Covid continues. Can re-appear after it comes out. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - Let’s keep this in a draft until the time comes. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/send to draftspace. It has a better chance of becoming notable when/if filming comes about and when/if it gets released. I agree with Foxnpichu that this is likely the best option. Hidden Hills Editor are you interested in keeping up with the draft? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi there, ReaderofthePack I was not aware that it was too early into production to create a page for this film but I would be glad to keep up with this draft! Thank you all for your input on this matter. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - it's something that I think most of us tend to learn the hard way for the most part. I know I did! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There’s already a draft article for this film and its way more fleshed out then this, which shouldn’t be in the mainspace to begin with seeing as the film isn’t in production yet. I say delete. TheMovieGuy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8870:AAB0:284F:3CB6:1750:783C (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show us this draft? Foxnpichu (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unique content into existing draft per above. When/if the film meets guidelines, it can be published. // Timothy :: talk 14:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While we can be sympathetic to a new(er) editors not knowing to check drafts there is an issue that I don't see any "unique content" that can be merged. @Hidden Hills Editor: and ReaderofthePack: Read the current draft and see if there is not reasoning to agree with TheMovieGuy that it is "way more fleshed out then this". I might have missed something but what specifically could be "merged" that is not in the draft? If there is just one or two references then just add them to the current draft (anybody can edit it) since it does seem it is "too early into production to create a page". A close to duplicate title, with nothing new to offer, does not seem to be productive. Besides, this article was created 2020-10-22 with 9 editors and the draft 2019-11-19 with 17 editors (30 days). The draft title including (upcoming film) might be more appropriate if production starts or other acceptable criteria for allowing creation. Don't Look Up (2021 film) might be wrong if the film is not started this year. It would seem this could set a precedent that an editor could create an article over draft and be credited as the creator when that would not actually be true. Why punish the creator of the draft (and those that worked on it) by allowing the possibility that if the criteria was met for creation (pre- or production was started), an editor could just move his or her version back to article space, while the draft editor is still awaiting acceptance. That draft would then be declined and deleted as a duplicate. That is a can of worms I don't wish to open so I have to side with "Delete" Otr500 (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: Would merging the two history wise mitigate this concern? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @TheSandDoctor: I will state I am not against any solution that might retain any editorial history as an alternate to outright deletion. As an editor that works in WP:AFC I see too much material that I don't think suited for an encyclopedia and rejoice when I can promote one to article space. I am happy when I leave comments that are dealt with that results in someone else accepting the draft. I also enjoy finding a draft where a new editor is involved in attempting to implement improvements (interaction like answering concerns) to a draft to facilitate publishing. What I hope never to see is some precedence that could possibly hinder what appears to be the original creator, waiting in line in a backlog for possible creation, being undermined because someone else can publish the article "first".

Surely that would not be an arguable concern from anyone so I think the original creation date important in cases like this. I would think stifling the creative motives of one editor, by allowing a "jumping of the gun" (by accident or not), would not be beneficial in the short or long run. In this case, and considering the draft or article is just not ready for publication but will likely be notable ("when/if filming comes about"), I think this author might also agree and possible join the draft in attempts to get it published when the criterion has been met. I choose to have a lot of faith in Admins that I feel are continuing to strive for encyclopedia improvements. I will accept any decision that addresses what I deem as highly important concerns as well as those of others with valid concerns. Two Admins are now weighing in so I feel I can "go away" in peace (smile). Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 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 13:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Alex Woodworth[edit]

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

Non-notable crime, fails WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E. Earlier A7 speedy request declined on the technical basis that this is about an event, not a person (which the article name, although not necessarily the single-sentence article itself, bears out), hence this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:EVENT. Retswerb (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs more sources, otherwise delete. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royal broil 03:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should never have left draft space. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 20:19, 27 October 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 12:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rambarooti[edit]

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

Not able to find any reviews or significant coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reviews; fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 19:32, 1 November 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 12:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Switzer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Cannot find any sources citing his world championship win, doesn't seem legit. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Exactly what Sportsfan 1234 said. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know how notable this guy is, but come on you can atleast look on the website of the championship [26]. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 09:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where are the IAAF or Sport Canada links? If he's ranked and a national champion, we need to see that. Nothing shown here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 26 October 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) 09:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Robin[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NCORP for small private company. Lots of minor coverage but nothing in-depth. scope_creep^Talk 17:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Does not pass WP:NBIO, promotional article. 1292simon (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : As written doesn’t fit notability but a quick google search shows there is likely enough Top tier articles And podcasts about her And her business to qualify. This should sandbox or just note as a stub. Juju (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first five reference in the google search are dependent sources, her branding. No one is saying there is not coverage, its the quality of the coverage that is absent. Quality matters. It needs to be independent, reliable and in-depth. It is simply her business on the web and it not reliable, nor independent for the most part. There is no secondary sources to speak of. scope_creep^Talk 22:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient independent reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Founded a company 20 yrs ago and has 20 some employees. Nothing to make it stand out from others in the field. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a run of the article about a person going about their business and the sources are muh. So, I'm going with delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:11, 2 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masoom Minawala[edit]

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

Biography of an Indian entrepreneur who lacks non trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. All references are from reliable sources and mentions were not trivial (For example: TED talk, CNN, HSBC etc.). Yes, article is still at an initial stage and can be expanded in future. There are lots of contents & references on web on the subject of the article. (Note for reviewer: I was the creator of this article) Nalbarian (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject definitely fails WP:BIO, WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, WP:GNG. All the mentions are trivial, and just inclusions in the some non-notable under 40 lists does not merit any inherent notability. Also giving TEDx talks has not mean anything for the purposes of notability. Nalbarian, if an when reliable sources with non-trivial coverage comes up in the future, the article can be re-created then. The argument that the article can be expanded in the future is not accepted in AfD discussions here on WP as then every BLP can be argued on that lines. Roller26 (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Has coverage in Vogue and also was a TEDx speaker. You don't just get invited to speak at TEDx, unless you are someone significant.Expertwikiguy (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Expertwikiguy:, The Vogue coverage that you mention is simply a mention and a quote, no way qualifying as significant coverage. There are more than 3000 TEDx talks organized every year by a huge number of organizations, each having 6 to 10 speakers each. Being selected for a TEDx talk in no way confers notability. I know of an individual who has delivered more than 10 different TEDx talks, his bio was CSDed (quick deletion) on simple wiki, where the notability guidelines seems to be less stricter then here. Roller26 (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we are looking at the overall picture here, then I feel she has significant coverage. Vogue mention is one item, TEDx is another item, CNN’s 20 under 40 is another notability factor and bunch more. We need to look at the overall picture, so I just simply pointed out 2 items that were the most notable. As you know Wiki rules indicate that a subject must have significant coverage and this is very subjective on the reviewer. This is why we are voting. I am not sure why you are so adamant to argue your view. You already voted, so leave it at that and let the overall votes decide the outcome! Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current citations are sufficient to establish WP:GNG. Some people are just famous for being famous. If she's famous for her wedding (for example), then it is what is it, but WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/WP:IS is established. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and fails 1E. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Society figures can be notable enough, but it's a very high bar, and I see no evidence that the subject meets it. It has to be more than a minimal coverage that just meets the GNG, considering the general unreliability of sources in this area. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. She is WP:TOOSOON. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't agree more with DGG. --KartikeyaS (talk) 19:26, 4 November 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 is a close call, but basically the sources listed in the first week were refuted as being unsuitable by too many people during the second. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel London - Chelsea[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG, sources cover previous business at the same location. I found:
- "International directory of company histories: v.1". Choice Reviews Online. 26 (09): 26–4849-26-4849. 1989-05-01. doi:10.5860/choice.26-4849. ISSN 0009-4978.
- Hotel & Catering Review. Jemma Pub. Limited. 2002.
- Hotel Britain: The Definitive Guide to Performance and Prospects in the Capital and Throughout the Country. Pannell Kerr Forster Associates. 2004.
- HotelBusiness. ICD Publications. 2003.
- British Hospitality: Trends and Statistics. British Hospitality Association. 2007.
- bighospitality.co.uk. "Amaris Hospitality agrees £30m Hilton re-brand". bighospitality.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- Steves, Rick (2014-02-11). Rick Steves' Great Britain. Avalon Publishing. ISBN 978-1-61238-680-5.
- Eve, Carl (2019-09-01). "Jailed in August: knife-wielding robbers, thugs, idiot drivers all jailed". PlymouthLive. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- "Iconic Southampton hotel sold for £29 million – and it's set to get a new name too". Romsey Advertiser. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- "Lone Star rumoured to sell Jurys Inn and six..." The Caterer. 2017-05-24. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- Carey, Brian. "Check out the five-star hotelier who holds the key to success". ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
- "Westminster Council spent £3m on hotels for homeless". BBC News. 2013-05-22. Retrieved 2020-10-18.
Undoubtedly there is plenty more. Glee^anon 22:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if and only if the sources found are added to the article, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not clean-up, it’s bad enough nom has put up ten hotels in one day. Others shouldn’t be expected to also fix the problems that are normal editing. If BEFORE was followed we likely wouldn’t be here. Glee^anon 22:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG as above Spiderone 13:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete A lot of this is about the sale of the company, not this building, and the rest seems routine travel/local coverage. The Romney Advertiser perhaps comes closest, but its tone is baldly promotional. If the building really is "iconic" then it should be possible to source that from something outside the travel news hothouse. Mangoe (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this hotel; passing mentions in travel guides etc. and some 'news' of the property sale/rebranding (which is a constant feature of the hotel business) do not add up to significant coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be literally any hotel, nothing noteworthy about it. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not literally any hotel. The hotel received significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources when doing a search per WP:BEFORE. The content of the coverage is not of import to GNG. If it meets those requirements then it passes. It also does not have to be added to the article during this AfD in order to prove anything as this process is not for cleaning up articles as also pointed out in BEFORE. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about it is notable? Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between significance and notability. Notability is about coverage in reliable and verifiable secondary sources only. There are a lot of seemingly insignificant subjects that are included in Wikipedia because they pass WP:GNG.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there aren't any reliable sources other than stuff that would be written about any other hotel in London. Wikipedia is not a registry for every hotel in existence (see WP:DIRECTORY). Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same sources? The BBC and TheTimes are definitely two reliable sources. There are others provided above and still others found by doing a BEFORE search. The content of the sources does not matter so long as the subject receives significant coverage and the sources are independent or secondary as opposed to primary. Just because an editor feels it isn't reliable is not good enough to delete an article. When there is a chance to expand the encyclopedia with pertinent and important articles that are relevant to readers/researchers while also maintaining the integrity of neutrality, "IAR" (Ignore All Rules). We don't even have to do that here because it passes GNG but that is in spirit with the future of Wikipedia and where it needs to go. Otherwise we might as well call this experiment Britannica 2. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Beeb story nor the one from the Times is about this hotel! Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A ten-year old, 160 room hotel. Toronto has a few hundred of these... Was it architecturally notable or does it have some LEED-certification awards? At best could be a line in a list of hotels in the area. What makes it stand out from the other hundreds of hotels anywhere else? Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet either WP:GNG nor WP:GEOFEAT.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems like a pretty average local hotel that is just going about it's business. As hotels tend to do. The sourcing is trivial and fails the guidelines. Especially the ones provided in this AfD. Which are mainly just name drops and definitely do not count as in-depth coverage. Plus, like Mangoe said, a few of the sources aren't even about the hotel in the first place. So, this a clear delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. This is a perfectly normal average hotel. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that is WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 14:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knowhere[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 coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Outside of plot summary, the article has a single quote from a WP:INTERVIEW with the authors, and I am not seeing much else. Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 9 October 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} 12:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This just doesn't have the secondary sourcing required. It's more the sort of content one would expect to find on Wikia. The title might be useful as a plausible misspelling of nowhere but retaining the edit history would not be productive. I also point out that disruptively removing legitimate maintenance tags just so you can obscure in edit summaries that you are deprodding strikes me as petty, pointlessly dishonest, and snide. Reyk _YO! 13:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Discussions of Knowhere appear numerous times in Comic Book Resources (seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia), it seems to be a key plot item in Guardians of the Galaxy, and has been the focus of a journalistic discussion of a movie plot flaw. We don't delete articles because they currently lack secondary sourcing -- we improve the articles to include the secondary sourcing that does exist. I'm relatively new to AfD's, but my thinking is "what's the harm in keeping?" - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The two links you provided are to reliable sources, but the dicussion of the subject is rahter sparse. I count 4 sentences mentioning it in the first source, and 2 in the second, and they are all either 'previous appearances in media' or 'plot summary'. Can you quote any sentence that shows analysis, significance or impact of this concept? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The place is quite notable, especially since the success of the GotG movies. I'm finding that it's quite easy to find detailed sources and so our policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." For example, the latest interesting fact: "The Knowhere station in the film Guardians of the Galaxy comprised 1.2 billion unique triangles that fit within 30GB of memory". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neither keep opinion has presented sourcing that allows the article to meet WP:GNG. None of the secondary sources provide anything that could be described as "significant coverage" on the topic. It's all just trivial little mentions. TTN (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments, or merge to Celestial (comics) per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not have direct and indepth SIGCOV from RS. // Timothy :: talk 20:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. William Harris (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because some people claim several times that something "doesn't have coverage" or "fails GNG" that doesn't make it true, especially when there is contradictory proof posted right above them....★Trekker (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to point out that proof. What's present is a bunch of trivial mentions, some from reliable sources, some questionable. The singular source that covers the topic in the most detail is just an explanatory article that's 95% synopsis for the non-comic reader and a singular quote from the creators. TTN (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just like our article, which is totally not how to write about WP:PLOT elements. Not that not following MoS is enough to delete something, but it is just one of many red flags here... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contra nom as it passes the GNG due to coverage in secondary sources. Disruptive, dishonest nomination. --Moscowdreams (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

I don't believe that Piotrus is attempting to mislead, even if their standard for coverage can be absurd at times. Dark knight 2149 00:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Putting aside the fact that it passes WP:NCOMIC (which, like WP:NFICTION, can be dismissed as "just an essay"), I think the coverage itself is sufficient enough to pass GNG. That we have multiple articles going into detail on the location, as well as creator comments and behind the scenes information, is a testament to that. An entire news article devoted to the fact that the location may have received an origin story is not significant coverage? A news article and creator commentary pertaining to the locations prominence in a $2 billion dollar blockbuster is not significant coverage? Even in the article itself, there are sources and interviews that discuss how the creators came up with major design elements for Knowhere. Even the location potentially getting an origin story in an upcoming film is apparently newsworthy. Dark knight 2149 00:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I acknowledge my bias here & probably shouldn’t be !voting as i am the stereotype Marvel “fan-boy” (I’m a girl in real life), that aside, Knowhere has been mentioned multiple times in comic books & a deep web search shows hits in sources of which a combination of all would see Knowhere warrant a standalone per BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable per the sources talking about the Guardians of the Galaxy movie. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Guardians of Galaxy, as the only piece of notability identified is related to that work. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#Plot. After a check of the available sources, nothing appears to be on the level of truly significant/reliable. Mostly plot information and trivia. I could write an article with many more sources about a video game location and still have it soft deleted, so if this is truly kept the standard for comics is pretty low. Mere mentions in comic books is not enough for an article, though it is for a Wikia page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one simply has to add "marvel" to the search parameters to yield: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Right cite (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User talk:Darkknight2149 --Telecart (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Celestial (comics), which contains enough about Knowhere to give readers context. I applaud the efforts to find mentions in reliable sources, but I don't see enough information about Knowhere in those sources to build a meaningful article. They all say what Knowhere is, and sometimes mention its first comic appearance or whatever. The only real-world data we have is that the writers "just thought of it one day." That's not noteworthy or useful to readers. It is a valid search term, and I considered targeting it toward Features of the Marvel Universe (where it's currently not mentioned), but I think BOZ got it right. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. A significant and well-storied location in multiple media of the franchise. BD2412 T 01:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the topic is treated in secondary sources. I have added a bit of non-plot information as a start (which is not in Celestial (comics)). Daranios (talk) 15:57, 29 October 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 12:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter H. Lunder[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Article created way back in 2013 with a single primary source. Not much has improved since then to establish notability and significance. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person exists and made a generous donation to his alma mater. However, I have not been able to find significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. It's not the size of the donation, but its impact that matters. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this Boston Globe article is clearly substantial coverage of him. That, plus the interview reference in the article and coverage such as this CBC article on his donations is enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, would be included as a line in an article about the college for the donation he made. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 26 October 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 Ceconomy. Sandstein 12:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaMarktSaturn Retail Group[edit]

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

No apparent sources, either here on in the deWP article. Not surprising, since they are simply an intermediate holding company for some of the assets of Ceconomy. The revenue , employees, and locations listed in the infobox are simply those of the firms it operates. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Ceconomy - Per nom, seems that this company was a legitimate subsidiary before Ceconomy was spun off from Metro AG. Jumpytoo Talk 10:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ceconomy. No evidence of notability independent of parent. Target article already covers this subsidiary. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ceconomy, absolutely no reason for this to exist, and there's nothing to merge, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ceconomy seems fair. Like has already been stated there's really zero reason for this to exist. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Marszewski[edit]

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

A businessperson and man-about-town in Chicago who, I believe, fails WP:BASIC. He gets hits in Chicago-area press, but I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV, in independent sources, of him personally. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe a wrong-headed criterion, but a biography authored and sourced by a former employee of the Wikimedia Foundation is probably compliant with Wikipedia policies for inclusion. I for one feel like the {edit} systemic bias (not attributing to the nominator) {end edit} against regionally-noted personalities is unfair. Metro Chicago has as many people as the nation of Hungary -- why wouldn't we say that "local" coverage across Chicago media is just as noteworthy as coverage of a famous Hungarian, but limited to Hungary-based media? - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AppleBsTime, Fair enough, but please don't accuse me of bias. This was a good faith nomination, which you are of course free to dispute by pointing to sources that cast doubt on my view. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my edit above. - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not have the truly broad coverage beyond what is local coverage to justify having the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I started this article. All of the Chicago-based articles are acceptable sources and the following articles do not come from Chicago-based publications and demonstrate notability across fields of design, art, food, brewing, publishing and so forth over the course of many years -- notable enough for several references in the New York Times, one in Bloomberg, one in AIGA. I believe that these represent "truly broad coverage":

Victor Grigas (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victorgrigas, The first of these sources is an interview and the rest look to be passing mentions of Marszewski in the context of one of his businesses. If notability is established, I think it would have to be on the basis of the more detailed Chicago-specific coverage of him in particular. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Many of the sources in the article showcase Marszewski's work, and there are other sources that profile Marszewski or his career including [27][28][29]. Since he has received significant coverage in multiple independent sources, he passes GNG and is WP:N. Z1720 (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of these sources are from Chicago-area publications. I know individuals aren't subject to WP:AUD, but it seems a little strange to me to rely on local coverage for notability in this way. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's odd using local coverage. As far as I know, there's isn't a policy or guideline that discourages local coverage to showcase notability. If there is can it be posted below? I think as long as the sources are WP:RS and pass WP:GNG then they can be used to show notability. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, I candidly admit I don't have a policy or guideline handy to support my argument. My point is just that people from City X often get coverage in City X's local press, and that we should think twice before considering such coverage evidence of notability in itself. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:02, 27 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanalakshmi Talupu Tadite[edit]

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

Fails WP:Films. Only one review exists. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 11:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it does have one national newspaper review and probably has offline film magazine coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 1 review...fails WP:NFILM. Offline coverage is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's been reviewed in a national newspaper it is likely to be reviewed in at least one of the many offline Indian film magazines, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 26 October 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 List of animated television series by episode count. (non-admin closure) — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 04:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of American animated television series by episode count[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No indication that the entries in this list form a coherent topic discussed as such by reliable sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of animated television series by episode count. Just add in a sortable list for nation it was made in, like List of television programs by episode count has. Dream Focus 12:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of animated television series by episode count as above. I went ahead and added a "country" column there (but will have to return to it later to finish filling it in). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of animated television series by episode count - Definitely doesn’t need its own article, but should be merged into a similar article. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not entirely useless article. Sachin.cba (talk) 11:49, 28 October 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.