< October 30 November 01 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MC Shadow[edit]

MC Shadow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is 10 years old, but seems to bear the hallmarks of an elaborate publicity project that fails WP:NBAND.

The editor who created and still primarily maintains this article is very obviously the subject itself. All of the Commons images depicting this person, some of which go back to the late 1980s, were uploaded by this user and are tagged as "own work." The user has admitted that he owns the rights to the subject and its associated band as well. Going through the edit history of the article, this editor and some IPs with similar editing habits are the only ones who have been able to contribute anything substantial to this article, and the only other significant changes to content have been to remove puffery or unverified claims.

As a BLP, this article is very problematic as so much of it is either unreferenced, or based on very dubious sources. Going through the list of references:

I counted two sources that could potentially establish notability, but I'm unable to find the source content, and I doubt that it's enough to substantiate an article of this length.

On top of this, I've identified three other articles related to this subject which, in my opinion, should be deleted in tandem:

East Park Productions, Get Loose Crew and Get Loose Crew (album) were created by the same user, and describe, respectively, a record label founded and operated by "MC Shadow," and then the band and associated debut album in which "MC Shadow" participated. Much of the information overlaps with the MC Shadow article. Bizarrely, the East Park article has no references at all except one to the same student paper mentioned above, and the other articles rely on several of the same poor sources used in the MC Shadow article. I found nothing in an internet search that would establish notability for an article for any of them. —{Canucklehead} 23:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: no independent coverage The Ace in Spades (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the contributor, I am going to present information to support keeping the topic intact and not deleting, as soon as possible and within this time allotted period of review. I have responded in great detail to the assertion or suggestion made that I am the Topic. In short, I am not. I have reviewed the terms with respect to potential or actual COI and I have none. Due to the harsh severity of nominating this topic for deletion, I will be responding properly, appropriately and with the greatest of respect to something that I feel has been mischaracterized and misrepresented. This is not a job and I am not a professional writer, editor etc. I am just a person with interest in this topic and some related ones and I have enjoyed being a contributor and very amateur writer on this and related topics. Its (respectfully) a hobby and I have to take time to put together as much supportive points that are relevant to support NOT DELETING this topic. Also, the other 2 topics. Thank youOldschoolmc (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a non-notability head template to East Park Productions, Get Loose Crew and Get Loose Crew (album), identified by the nominator above, adding a rationale, and link to this page, on the Talk Pages, to perhaps find further contributors to this discussion. Acabashi (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I am responding directly to the suggestions, assertions and am I providing substantive positions, explanations and defence to the nomination proposed, and to NOT have the article deleted at this time. I am just a person who was interested writing and making contributions as a quasi editor, and felt kind of important and relevant about writing about a topic (creating articles), that I have a genuine interest in. I didn’t expect to have unverified attacks or negative assertions hurled at me. Or be bombarded with a lot of negativity and really abrasive suggestions and accusations. I am responding in length to each point made by the requestor to delete based upon their original points in the nomination for deletion. I have communicated to the subject via email and informed him as to what is happening with his Wikipedia page and the related topics. I have asked him to provide any new material sources that can be verified for inclusion to support NOT having the page deleted. I thank you in advance for your patience. My responses are in italics. ASSERTION - This article is 10 years old, but seems to bear the hallmarks of an elaborate publicity project that fails WP:NBAND. REBUTTAL - It is not a publicity project or effort to sell services or advertise for services. Whether it is weak or requires improvement, it is and has always been as intended – a Topic of a relevant person, who’s accomplishment has been researched, subject of university study, interviewed and otherwise documented and supported by sources by credible and notable academics, journalists, music industry professionals, and scholars a) Graduate School Researcher and former Vancouver DJ that played his music in the 1990’s and interviewed the subject and others as identified as local pioneers that played a crucial role in developing the local (Toronto) scene, b) An adjunct professor at Toronto's Ryerson University, as well as the founder of Northside Hip Hop Archive whom is a contact to the person (artist) and surrounding artists, hosted the TDot Pioneers Exhibit collected and displayed artifacts and information related to the artist on his organization’s website and his knowledge of the Canadian/Toronto hip hop music scene. The Topic person discussed here was an attendee and photographic proof shows him with other pioneer individuals that established hip hop in Toronto. I don’t know these individuals or how to contact them but know of their performances and presence on radio and video in Toronto. c) A postdoctoral fellow at the Jackman Humanities Institute, University of Toronto. conducting academic Research study that traces the history of Toronto Hip Hop, and the relationship that Hip Hop practitioners and industry professionals have had to the music marketplace and creative industries in both the City of Toronto and Canada. Invited the person (artist/topic) to participate in this research because (quote from copy of release issued from the University of Toronto) “he has been identified as prominent member of Toronto’s Hip Hop history and the history of Canada’s culture industries.” This research project, which will focus on the historical period of 1985 – 2020 and include the interview material of 50 participants, will explore how the Toronto Hip Hop scene has unfolded over the past thirty-five years. 

This research conducted by Dr. Francesca D’Amico-Cuthbert a postdoctoral fellow at the Jackman Humanities Institute – housed at the University of Toronto. A historian of Hip Hop culture and Black popular music to date, her published research has focused on the history of Hip Hop and Rap music (in both the United States and Canada), Hip Hop pedagogy and educational curriculum, and the history of other Black popular music forms such as Soul, Funk and Disco. *This latter section is from a document release form that was emailed to me by the subject that he has provided to the people doing the research.

Peripheral source information that would be included, (I have been researching and trying to obtain copies of include) An interview with (also a Topic) Maestro Fresh Wes (Wes Williams) on MTV (City Much Music Toronto) whereby he comments and acknowledges the accomplishment (details contained within Topic) on the ‘Get Loose Crew’ (related Topic) inclusive of the person/artist MC Shadow and also an Episode of ‘Narduwar’ (also a Topic) where he discussed and acknowledges the group (Topic Get Loose Crew) and (Topic MC Shadow) and is holding a copy of the groups 1988 release in his hand, in camera view. Research has been ongoing to identify the Episode, segment and specific time to cite as a reference in support of both topics. Independent writer and music critic Samantha Stevens (cited), Streetsound Publication contributor Jonbronski (cited Writer), and media interviews with Eric Tunney CBC Television show to be transcribed and Radio interview with (defunct) CKLN Ryerson University Radio personality and hip hop historian Radio Interview (to be transcribed) by Ron Nelson (Topic) CKLN radio. ASSERTION - The editor who created and still primarily maintains this article is very obviously the subject itself. REBUTTAL - The editor has made submissions since inception. The editor and author are not the subject itself and have been detailed in the Wiki section question COI. ASSERTION - All of the Commons images depicting this person, some of which go back to the late 1980s, were uploaded by this user and are tagged as "own work." REBUTTAL - The Commons items have been labeled own work both due to inexperience at the time of submission that was the choice to avoid constraints of potential copyright. Ignorance is not necessarily an excuse, but material asked for, received, or provided upon request of an individual or party for the purposes of submission can be construed or suggested own work. Simply because the copied material is now material in the possession of the editor as an individual. Copies were made to protect originals from being lost or destroyed. No foolish individual would provide a stranger ‘original works at the risk of loss or destruction. The error here on my part, is that the works should have been identified as; not an original document or file and is a copy provided for free use at the consent of the subject for furtherance of the article. The liability would befall the editor if the images or documents or files were obtained inappropriately and used without consent. I am pretty sure that a poor 1980’s rapper would be able to find a lawyer that would take up an opportunity to sue someone who exploited their image without consent – and has the documents to back that up. The files provided were non copyright free use material upon consent provided by the subject. This in turn grants me permission to use and or exploit the files provided to me as ‘copies provided with no expectation that they be returned’. If I were to profit by way of financial compensation, that protection would no longer extend to me based upon the representation (requests) originally made to obtain material to substantiate, support and include in the article. The copies supplied by the subject was indicated to him, on the basis that could substantiate existing lighter citation or demonstrate clarity to information and claims submitted. Nothing was submitted or provided by the subject that generates compensation or is an effort to sell the subject. ASSERTION - The user has admitted that he owns the rights to the subject and its associated band as well. REBUTTAL - The statement attributed to “owning the rights to the subject” is explicitly relating to mechanical exploitation or informal licencing through means of providing files, documents, media and access to sources (upon approval) to submit exclusively to the Wikipedia project. The editor (me) has no rights to exercise beyond that specifically, and other than any purchased or traded artifacts amongst Hip Hop enthusiasts of the day (flyers, material items, hats, clothing) which was frequently done. (I personally traded items back them with people and are some valuable collectables now for me). The other members of the band have all gone onto greater and successful pursuits; including being the first JUNO award winner for Rap Music in Canada and has its own controversy attached to the member whom is also a TOPIC in Wikipedia (BKool/Carl Badwa). The person who could be regarded as a ‘curator’ (Mr. Grant-Stuart) with substantial material and documents to lift up the Get Loose Crew article and in turn this one passed away late last year. Retrieving material from him or his estate is not possible. ASSERTION - Going through the edit history of the article, this editor and some IPs with similar editing habits are the only ones who have been able to contribute anything substantial to this article, and the only other significant changes to content have been to remove puffery or unverified claims. REBUTTAL - This in my opinion is a bit of a personal attack. It has sufficient negative tone, and is just not very nice. IP information is hardly reliance in any form of identification standard (I don’t believe the individual is suggesting that they are a Cybersecurity expert), and coupled with the suggestion of some analysis of editing habits? That’s a very precarious suggestion that should come from an Intelligence Analyst competent in identifying pattern of speech, written word, or similar forensics. I am being a little silly here, because this process and some of the hard line unpleasantries are … silly. I am not an academic, scholar or wizard on this platform or a well versed or skilled ‘editor’ as referred to. I am a person, who was very interested about writing about and gathering data about this subject. It’s a work in progress. Isn’t that what Wikipedia is supposed to be about? I appreciate standards and rules, but it kind of seems like a bit of an attack with desire of all out cancellation? ASSERTION - As a BLP, this article is very problematic as so much of it is either unreferenced, or based on very dubious sources. REBUTTAL - ‘Dubious’? Why such sinister tone? Is it necessary and is this attitude overall being a bit of an attack and not an effort to substantively review and question items to perhaps improve the article? Seems kind of harsh that its an ‘all or nothing’ ‘take it down’ and all other references to the subject. Seems destructive. Just my side thought.

Going through the list of references: • ASSERTION - Parts of the lead, which include the artist's WP:CCS of being the world's second white rapper, are attributed to a "distribution agreement" from 1988 that does not seem to be publicly accessible in any form. REBUTTAL - Its a duly executed contract registered in the province of Ontario and as an executed contract entered into, would be available and accessible publicly at any time upon request of the parties’ thorough counsel. I am sure that if anyone requested a copy of contract from either party (outside of subpoena) or court order, that could easily be done. Alternately, please direct me to where the image (approved by the subject) could be posted on Wikipedia to be viewed and confirmed. As I understand it some of the documents and other things they have will be put on their website. I do know that some of the content of the contract per se has been referenced in television media (referenced in this long response) but I can’t write that as ‘editor’ herein. That media is sought and appropriate references can and will be cited when available. • ASSERTION - The early history of this subject is completely unreferenced and searches for key terms such as "Def Force Sound Crew" and "MC Rumble" don't turn up any results connecting them to the subject. REBUTTAL - The name “Def Force Sound Crew" was related by the subject as a band or group that those guys were all in together before they released their record. This is common among rock bands, where they were one name and then another. I have seen on social media, crude media (subjective word) advertisements for that group’s performances at local shows, but nothing I felt that I could submit it. The other thing is much of this history from sources is just appearing. A person (not knowing) would really have to understand and appreciate the genre and political landscape. Simply put, many people in Toronto and Canada (if they even care) believe that Hip Hop and Rap began with Drake (Topic). Others believe it was before him but after 1991 with a subject called Kardinal Official. Some who think that they know their history really well think that its Maestro Fresh Wes (Topic) preceding him in 1990. The irony, is that this subject (Topic) precedes all of these people and on a historical scale. The subject has been acknowledged and validated by HIS PEERS through various accounts that are making their way in this organic article. As for the "MC Rumble", he is known as David Morgan by name and has been described by people as private and elusive. He rebuked the most recent spotlight at the CBC Hip Hop Summit a few years ago by walking around on stage, talking and then bizarrely leaving. He avoided any interviews and apparently disappeared from the event. MC Rumble has not released any material known of since the 1990’s and reference to him by the subject (in the article) was in response to questions surrounding, “What inspired or drew you to being a rapper” “What motivated you release your record” “What was the path like as a rapper to putting out a record”. It is clear that the subject was an independent artist and not on a major record label. There is information and history to account for this but it something anticipated in citing’s and supportive sources and not my account or received information. I have been doing my best to post information and not come off like the expert. Because simply, I am not. If that has created an image of “puffery’, then that is because I am not a true editor or biographer and have been trying to do my best in this community. • ASSERTION - The 1988 section attributes the subject's presence on a local chart to the home page of "East Park Productions" - an organization connected to the subject - and attributes a claim about a record being on "a list of most collectible Toronto albums" to an WP:SPS. REBUTTAL - The subject has responded to the question of “where is your East Park Productions website”, responding to the effect that it is apparently under construction and offline because it was old looking. A new webmaster is working on the new site. I surmise that would be where the cited reference will be viewable to confirm. The reference "a list of most collectible Toronto albums", is what I found during my internet research. It is called TO Blog and has a credentialed writer and is not a recreational hobby site. I have emailed and tried to contact the author of the article to no avail. They aren’t responding to enquiries. Even when I have indicated that I am a contributor to Wikipedia and are looking for some source support. • ASSERTION -The 2014 section is mostly unreferenced while making claims that a video project apparently titled "Resurrection" was un undertaking of "the first of its kind in any music genre." I was unable to find any objective evidence of this other than the student paper which one part has cited. REBUTTAL - I would go further to support your point and actually call this section ‘sloppy’, ‘haphazard’ and not my finest effort. I can attest to the statement separate from any comment by anyone that the project the subject is doing, and is not yet completed is truly and accurately one of a kind for any form of music. The fact is simple that nowhere in music by any group, band, or otherwise has anyone attempted or completed the project he is working on. It is not simply explained, and I had trouble understanding it at first, but it’s a project that once complete will have never been created before and is evidenced nowhere else currently. Please remember, that despite the source does not write for a major publication or renowned music media outlet that does not negate, disqualify or otherwise belittle their commentary. If it had been to the contrary and not supportive, perhaps these viewpoints would (presumably) be considered valid as “objective evidence”. • ASSERTION - The "Collaborations" section says that the subject has collaborated with a number of other artists, but uses references to the Juno Awards and an associated Vancouver Sun publication which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject itself. REBUTTAL - The collaborations section identifies an artist in Vancouver, his significance and JUNO success. The article and a refence to the JUNO awards specifically attribute to Nelson Garcia’s success as a collaborator whose art is the cover work for all of the subjects indicated releases. The Vancouver Sun is source to substantiate and to not negate the credibility of Mr. Garcia. Some of the other artists weblinks were removed by other editors, in particular Sarah Beatty, who has an interview with a reliable and credible source and discusses the subject and collaboration, etc. Its a double-edged sword. Links went up, links taken down. I understand this be an organic and developmental process, even when efforts to grow the article are shot down or taken down. ASSERTION - I counted two sources that could potentially establish notability, but I'm unable to find the source content, and I doubt that it's enough to substantiate an article of this length. REBUTTAL - There is respectfully sufficient source content and there is as with any process that is supposed to be community and contributory. At the risk of an even further response, I am confirming that the subject has identified at request by the editor in support of keeping this article any sources or updated information to assist. I am copying that information below and can also state that material ability to connect to it, request it, and verify it and the sources are forthcoming. First, Graduate School Researcher and former Vancouver DJ interviewed this person and others as identified as local pioneers that played a crucial role in developing the local (Toronto) scene, 2) An adjunct professor at Toronto's Ryerson University, as well as the founder of Northside Hip Hop Archive whom is a contact to the person (artist) and surrounding artists, hosted the TDot Pioneers Exhibit collected and displayed artifacts and information related to the artist on his organization’s website and his knowledge of the Canadian/Toronto hip hop music scene. The Topic person discussed here was an attendee and photographic proof shows him with other pioneer individuals that established hip hop in Toronto. I don’t know these individuals or how to contact them but know of their performances and presence on radio and video in Toronto. 3) A postdoctoral fellow at the Jackman Humanities Institute, University of Toronto. conducting academic Research study that traces the history of Toronto Hip Hop, and the relationship that Hip Hop practitioners and industry professionals have had to the music marketplace and creative industries in both the City of Toronto and Canada. Invited the person (artist/topic) to participate in this research because (quote from release issued) “he has been identified as prominent member of Toronto’s Hip Hop history and the history of Canada’s culture industries.” This research project, which will focus on the historical period of 1985 – 2020 and include the interview material of 50 participants, will explore how the Toronto Hip Hop scene has unfolded over the past thirty-five years. This research conducted by Dr. Francesca D’Amico-Cuthbert a postdoctoral fellow at the Jackman Humanities Institute – housed at the University of Toronto. A historian of Hip Hop culture and Black popular music to date, her published research has focused on the history of Hip Hop and Rap music (in both the United States and Canada), Hip Hop pedagogy and educational curriculum, and the history of other Black popular music forms such as Soul, Funk and Disco. *This latter section is from a document release form that was emailed to me by the person that he has provided to the people doing the research. A monolithic member of the earliest days of Hip Hop in Canada and undisputable source is writer, DJ and producer John 'Johnbronski' Adams who was a major figure in the early era of Toronto hip-hop music as credited by CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation). He is cited as a source who directly interviewed the subject, the other group members and establishes timeline and context to the article. This is a dated interview, with a now defunct publication. The information in the reference is taken from a supplied copy of the original magazine. Its condition is aged and there isn’t anywhere that I could establish posting it, other than a refence to the material I was supplied with. ASSERTION - On top of this, I've identified three other articles related to this subject which, in my opinion, should be deleted in tandem: East Park Productions, Get Loose Crew and Get Loose Crew (album) were created by the same user, and describe, respectively, a record label founded and operated by "MC Shadow," and then the band and associated debut album in which "MC Shadow" participated. Much of the information overlaps with the MC Shadow article. Bizarrely, the East Park article has no references at all except one to the same student paper mentioned above, and the other articles rely on several of the same poor sources used in the MC Shadow article. I found nothing in an internet search that would establish notability for an article for any of them. REBUTTAL – It is insulting to belittle the independent critical offering of Samantha Stevens as a student paper. Its certainly not a national publication, but it is a magazine (referred as such) and available online. Its certainly not a paper as characterized, and limited to a campus newspaper box or similar shelf or container. Again, that’s not very nice. Respectfully, I can explain the creation of East Park Productions easiest. As the only other independent Hip Hop label next to Beat Factory Productions in Toronto, I created the article as I felt that it would contribute and expand as an article with increased submission activity. I researched through Wikipedia other similar entities and with available information (weak or otherwise), set out to create this article for contribution and discussion. Get Loose Crew is the origin of subject, but the subject ultimately is the story and separated, grew and achieved outside of the contributions to that article. The most prominent articles are MC Shadow and The Get Loose Crew. They have significant separate relevancy. Some have been addressed in other articles by other artists one of the band members who has adopted other performance names and is a from of subject within 2 articles. All of this information is supported by significant credible developments and awakenings within the origins of this subject’s participation and existence in the Canadian music industry. Among much anticipated information to be submitted for review the boldest and compelling available source statement (retrieved on consent from the University of Toronto’s documentation on their letterhead) “he (the subject) has been identified as prominent member of Toronto’s Hip Hop history and the history of Canada’s culture industries.” And further stated to substantiate the timeline for the subject, “This research project, which will focus on the historical period of 1985 – 2020”. Citings (ref ref indicated below) are not present in this rebuttal at this time due to the deadline to formulate this response. All references contained in this response are VERIFIABLE. With extended time and an opportunity to communicate directly with all identified potential sources as to to the intent to destroy this topic, updated quality information could be provided. I would strongly assert that this topic and connected Get Loose Crew topic article are highly relevant and that this detailed response stands as a statement that bolsters support to other information to be presented and to NOT DELETE this article at this time.Oldschoolmc (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldschoolmc: You really need to review Wikipedia's policies on notability, reliable sources and verifiability. These are the main reasons that a consensus is emerging in favor of deleting or redirecting these articles, and you aren't addressing these reasons. We aren't concerning ourselves with your opinions of the subject, or what the subject thinks. We are concerning ourselves with whether this article complies with Wikipedia policy, and so far, it clearly does not. Saying that something is true because other people have told you it is isn't reliable evidence. Simply saying that that sufficient source content exists without providing it to people who clearly can't find it is not helpful, because the unverifiable assertions of one editor aren't reliable evidence. Saying that there are mysteriously unreachable people who can vouch for the content in the article is hearsay, which isn't reliable evidence.
As for some of your other points:
  • The references to the EPP website and the Juno Awards are problems because they don't support the claims they are attached to. The EPP home page did not have any information about the chart mentioned in the article, and also counts as a primary source, which are generally unreliable. With the Juno mentions, we're not looking for evidence that another artist won a Juno, we're looking for evidence that "MC Shadow" collaborated with a Juno winner. You can't attribute a statement to a source that has no backing for that statement - that's simply gaming the system.
  • You mentioned "I have communicated to the subject via email and informed him as to what is happening with his Wikipedia page and the related topics." Collaborating with the subject(s) to achieve a specific outcome for their articles means you are editing with a conflict of interest. I will add that it's fine to do so as long as you are not being paid and that your edits comply with policy, but it's disingenuous to say that you don't have one, and then go and involve the subject in the process. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Wikipedia articles, especially biographies of living people, are intended to be entirely objective, and verifiable by third parties. The input of a subject doesn't count for anything unless it meets those criteria. —{Canucklehead} 04:33, 5 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. Consensus holds that this is a promotional article with the coverage not demonstrating notability. ~ mazca talk 13:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Borovik[edit]

Rachel Borovik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Clearly a WP:PROMO piece for a non-notable musician. KidAd talk 22:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 22:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 22:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 22:36, 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 redirect to Victorian Amateur Football Association. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Box Hill North Football Club[edit]

Box Hill North Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a non-notable Aussie rules football club. Has been tagged for notability since 2010, so its time to get a hearing on this. I'm not able to find any coverage about this besides advertisements, hiring notices, brief local database entries, and primary coverage from the team, affiliated groups, and its league. Not seeing how this passes WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 20:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:45, 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 keep. In particular, H pointed out two scholarly sources that have significant coverage of this topic. No one has rebutted that these sources are not reliable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MazaCoin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MazaCoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

notability not established, all sources are unreliable. The sources by Tekobbe/McKnight and Alcantara/Dick are primary, so they cannot be cited. Mashable is a blog, it has covered dozens of blockchains, but it sources forums and twitter, without doing any independent research. Indian Country Today is local news, only covering MazaCoin because it was supposed to be for the tribe. Newsweek is the only reputable source, but a single source isn't enough to establish notability. There was a flurry of sources in 2014 (see the first AfD), but they are all just reporting on a single event, see e.g. The Telegraph. WaPo dedicates only a single sentence to MazaCoin. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PumpkinEditore: Welcome to Wikipedia, PumpkinEditore! I explained my problems with the references in my nomination. Can you explain why these sources are reputable? I explained how e.g. Mashable is not doing any independent journalism, merely reporting whatever they saw on Twitter. The sources do not become reputable because you claim the article is well-written. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Newsweek_(2013-present) says "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis" and I don't see any issue with that article. Ҥ (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article in First Monday about Mazacoin.
Has significant coverage in Canadian Journal of Law and Society. ("Mazacoin" appears about 38 times, not including the references) Ҥ (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Superastig: you're just hinting at reliable sources without pointing them out. Tell me your favorite and I'll tell you why it is not sufficient. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:03, 5 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Renee Kendall[edit]

Bridget Renee Kendall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't particularly want to delete this article, but I can't find any sources to help improve it and I'm at a complete and utter loss as to what else to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 19:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:38, 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. Actually, it seems likely that the two "keep"s are by the same person. Sandstein 18:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Galimzhan Shahmardanovich Yessenov[edit]

Galimzhan Shahmardanovich Yessenov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. References are passing mentions, non-rs, profile pages. No coverage. scope_creepTalk 10:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't. Lets examine them:
Forbes is non-rs.
[1] Net worth page. No encyclopedic information and promotional.
[2] Talks briefly about his political connections. Reliable but not-indepth. Passing mention.
[3] An amalgamation of several other sources.
[4]] Self-published Profile. Fails WP:SPIP. Dependent source.
[5] Profile page. Not in-depth.
[6] Passing mention. Not in-depth
[7] No mention
Facebook. Non-RS.
[8] Announcement. Passing mention.
[9] Press-release.
[10] 404.

So the first 12 references, there is one which is really decent, which is insufficient for notability. Most of them are business announcements and run of the mill business news. scope_creepTalk 15:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 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 no consensus. The reason that this is "no consensus" rather than "keep" is that it's not clear which of the cited sources are RS; Czechoslovakia at this time was a totalitarian dictatorship where freedom of the press did not exist. In the cswiki discussion, it seemed to have been deleted mostly due to lacking perceived importance, but this is less important on enwiki where we look for significant coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

František Bohdal[edit]

František Bohdal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted on cswiki per AfD, lacking notability. — Draceane talkcontributions 08:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the author of the article: There was a revision of the article - solving the pointed out problems, adding about 10 sources, which were not discussed at all in the past AfD, which prove the notability. Therefore, the removal of an article should have been evaluated by the entire community and should not be deleted in the opinion of a single administrator, as it happened on cswiki. The information in the article is verifiable (most sources have links where original articles can be read). The person has significant coverage in reliable articles (articles are archived in paper and online form in a scientific library, so the subject of the article is a permanent part of historical records). The person attracted press interest from the 1950s to the 1980s. He is the holder of two important state decorations, which were made by the President of the Republic on the proposal of the Government. He was a creative professional who brought improvements in the paper industry and the work of his department was awarded another state award for the entire team. At the same time, at the end of his working career, he was a local political figure who received significant press coverage. --Kopal.jiri (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mamakiki[edit]

Mamakiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film is notable because it has not received two reviews from well known independent critics. Zee5 does not count because they have distributed the film, so it is their own film. This issue is that a lack of sources exist. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:46, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Koh[edit]

Brandon Koh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this AFD discussion and others where a footballer with 1 game in the Singaporean league was deleted, we have here a footballer with 2 games. 53 minutes in total, so a little more than half a game in actual game time. Lack of multiple significant in-depth sources as well. Geschichte (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:46, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Presley[edit]

Amelia Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BAND. Failure to launch scenario. scope_creepTalk 09:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2]“ (She has been the subject of MULTIPLE published works such as newspaper both online and print, magazine articles, etc)”
  • “ Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.”(References have been added to support this)
Musicians are considered notable if they meet one of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. She meets two, possibly more. It just seems that there has been a lot of deletion of the page without anyone actually looking for the references which were fairly easy to find with a google search. Open to feedback on references that I’ve added. American Idol isn’t really something that should be in there though. Maybe someone added it because she was on TV? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RedDirtRedBird: You can only do one keep. scope_creepTalk 22:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Sorry about that. I’ve deleted the previous one, now. 21:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RedDirtRedBird: You need to provide evidence that she meets you criteria. Just stating that she meets it, doesn't really work. scope_creepTalk 10:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The weight of notability is not just on those who !vote to keep the article. The same weight is applied to those who !vote to delete. Prove she is not notable. Don't just say she doesn't meet criteria. What criteria? How does she not meet criteria? Give examples of how one might meet criteria. If a BEFORE search was conducted then one should be able to argue the results of that search easily.The burden of proof is on both sides in an AfD. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-

I have to agree with Tsistunagiskathat. It seems people are more caught up on arguing to delete this page so that they can feel as thought they’ve won, whereas we should all just be trying to find references without bias. Almaniacopedia (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2020
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: The evidence is in the references on the page. Can you specify how to prove she meets the criteria further than that? I thought it would be pretty clear. Thanks
That is not necessarily true about interviews by notable sources. Almaniacopedia (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2020
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not seeing much evidence toward why this article does not meet criteria. It is not sufficient to simply state that an article doesn’t meet criteria without showing that articles used are not independent. Read the definitions for all of these terms and you’ll see that many of the references listed are or could be considered notable sources (even interviews by notable sources). Almaniacopedia (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2020
[14]. This is self-published blog. There is no editorial control, so it is not valid references, it is Non-RS.
[15] This is her artist page on his A&R publishing site. By definition it can be used to establish WP:MUSICBIO.
[16] An announcement.
[17] An interview.
[18] An interview.
[19] A tiny album review. Not in-depth.
[20] A small profile page as she former coast guard women. Not in-depth.
[21] This is a blog. NON-RS. Fails WP:SPIP
[22] An announcement.
[23] Profile page on a self-hosted, a blog. Fails WP:SPIP

There is a duplicate. It doesn't add up to much. 2 Non-RS, 3 blogs, 2 announcements, 2 profiles, 2 interviews. So out of the 12 references and the rest which is clear case of WP:CITEKILL is 2 interviews, which are primary. There are no secondary sources, no social media coverage, no coverage, no international coverage. scope_creepTalk 08:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean by social media coverage? How is social media coverage considered reputable while other sources such as American Songwriter are not, according to your comments. Please look at any celeb page on Wikipedia and you’ll see that most of the sources are based on a bio or interview. That’s how information is gained about anyone. The difference is that the sources are reputable. You can’t say that it’s not reputable simply because it is based on an interview or mentions part of a bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedDirtRedBird (talk • contribs) 20:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RedDirtRedBird: Please sign your comments by using ~~~~. The software will convert it into a full signature. For new artists it is indicative of a flourishing career. If they are young artists and want a career in the music industry then they must have a good social media presence as that is fans. All musicians work like that now. scope_creepTalk 08:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Here is her social media. Again, just a simple search... => www.facebook.com/ameliapresleymusic [1] & www.instagram.com/ameliapresleymusic [2] I feel like I’m the only one doing any searches, honestly. As someone mentioned above. It’s not just on the “keep” voters to find this information. Also, thank you for helping me with signature. RedDirtRedBird (talk) 16:07, 6 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayout Intl[edit]

Wayout Intl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 17:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: no independent coverage The Ace in Spades (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:04, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Wighton[edit]

Shane Wighton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Goofy kid fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Guthrie Ferguson[edit]

Andrew Guthrie Ferguson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am a little unsure with this one, but on the balance of things think it fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:54, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2016 box office number-one films in Taipei[edit]

List of 2016 box office number-one films in Taipei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2017 box office number-one films in Taiwan, the source situation is questionable. It's also exactly zero precedence on Wikipedia to have lists about how films grossed in cities. Geschichte (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But why should Taipei as the only city in the world have such a list? Geschichte (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand 寒吉 correctly, it replaces the figure for all of Taiwan because of data problems for the rest of the country. If this is the case, I would allow it. 寒吉, please confirm! gidonb (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:08, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Healthcare Management[edit]

Journal of Healthcare Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't really find any non-primary sources ABOUT this journal, much less in any detail. The GNG requires MULTIPLE reliable third party sources to cover a subject for it to be deemed notable. I'm not seeing how an impact factor alone determines notability and don't see it listed in our guidelines as automatically conferring notability. I can't find any specific Notability guideline that deals with this kind of publication... WP:BOOKS does not seem to. Journal is non-notable per WP guidelines. OrgoneBox (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:1Q Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1Q is another essay. Essays have not met the consensus threshold to become a guideline, so insisting an essay trumps our own notability guideline flies in the face of process. We operate on WP:N, not agglomerations of essays. ♟♙ (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Clearly notable. ♟♙ (talk) 18:49, 5 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. (non-admin closure) Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World University Karate Championships[edit]

World University Karate Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What makes this competition notable? Sources are all WP:PRIMARY and my WP:BEFORE fails to find anything better. It is not a hoax, but neither is Wikiepdia a sport almanac... or is it? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very credible association website

It is surprising why someone would not consider this international competition not to be notable. Australianblackbelt (talk) 09:16, 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! 22:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. Jaye Gold[edit]

J. Jaye Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional BLP of a spiritual teacher who uses indirect methods to facilitate the removal of obstacles to the innate goodness in every human. Sourced to his own works and other unreliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, what we need to demonstrate notability of a subject is multiple references to reliable independent sources. These can be newspapers, books etc. But they must be by independent third parties. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Onganymede, the independent sources you need exclude anything by Gold or from his website or from ccns-inc.org or interviews of Gold—in other words none of the sources you are now using is useful. —teb728 t c 12:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there reliable independent sources suggesting that there is a valid topic here which could be rewritten? If not, there is no point in draftifying because the article can’t be developed.Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: @David notMD: @Robert McClenon: in the light of the complete rewrite by @Onganymede: what is your view now? The sourcing is now entirely different. These may be WP:RIS and the article subject may now be a WP:GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 04:00, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn with no deletion votes. (non-admin closure) Dylsss(talk • contribs) 17:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mifathul Ikhsan[edit]

Mifathul Ikhsan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:NFOOTBALL: hasn't yet played in a professional match. Captain Calm (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:27, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayuli Jemide[edit]

Ayuli Jemide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page created by seeming COI/SPA editor, who removed the prior PROD tag. Fails GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:22, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folarin Balogun[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Folarin Balogun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently deleted by AFD (three days ago!) and now re-created, but I don't think it's eligible for G4 as he has made his first senior appearance. However, he still fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (as his 16 minute cameo was against a team not from a fully-professional league). I suggest this is deleted and SALTed to prevent re-creation until such time as he is notable, at which point it can be easily restored - but draftifying is also fine if there is consensus for that. GiantSnowman 13:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: nope, only one appearance, in the Europa League against Dundalk. If/when he plays against FPL team again it can be restored - WP:CRYSTAL. GiantSnowman 09:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I had to re-read the article, I only did a quick scan and looked at the Europa BBC report. 16 minutes first team football! not much play, sounds like a good prospect know. I would of moved this to draft space on it's recreation. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: where are all these sources which indicate "significant coverage" of the player, to meet GNG? GiantSnowman 15:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[31] [32] appear to be good ones related to his debut (not too familiar with the Express though.) There's a bit of other coverage from Metro, but I'm not sure what qualifies as a tabloid and what's an okay source honestly. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: there's plenty of good sources out there about this player, if you just google him. And plenty of other of pages of young players who have done far less in their career.
Express is akin to Daily Mail, and never heard of 'Sporting News', so neither of those look reliable. Metro might be OK. GiantSnowman 10:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sporting News is one of the oldest North American sports magazines. It may be a reprint of a goal.com article, but I have no issues with that publication. SportingFlyer T·C 11:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like me to be topic banned then please raise at WP:ANI. GiantSnowman 19:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should also be blocked for deleting attempts to improve the article combined with false claims of lack of attribution. That you are more concerned about your attribution here, than improving Wikipedia, really makes clear your motive here to delete the article. As a result, this should be a Speedy Keep as a WP:POINTy nomination. No good comes from ANI which is a bizarre process. Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You copied content from their user sandbox, and they reverted your copying with attribution concerns and this started an edit war. If GiantSnowman had reverted original content I would be concerned but I don't have an issue with them reverting information copied over from their userspace if they don't think it's ready. This also isn't eligible for a speedy keep, and I don't think it's wikilawyering - it's a recreation of a very recently deleted article that might now meet notability guidelines (I think it does) but does not meet the SNG to the "letter of the law." It's really not worth arguing over - I'd just vote "keep" and let the process play out, and since GiantSnowman objected to your copy, make original edits to the article if you'd like. SportingFlyer T·C 20:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that mean User:Microwave Anarchist that the nominator shouldn't be making the nomination, and leaving it to others? I have no stake in this, or awareness of the player, before commenting at this AFD. Meanwhile the nominator is actually reverting attempts to improve the article! Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: I don't have a problem with them making the nomination, and I don't believe there are guidelines against it. Also they removed that content for copyright reasons, not because they didn't want to improve the article. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright reasons? First I've heard - tell me more User:Microwave Anarchist. On my talk page it was all about them, noting that it was a violation of WP:Copying within Wikipedia (which is false, as that's about unattributed stuff, and I explicitly attributed them in the edit summary). Nfitz (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution is required for copyright, and what you did was probably insufficient. If the article is kept, a WP:HISTMERGE is probably appropriate. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how if my edits stood, and there was a history merge, how there wouldn't be more than enough for copyright. Either way it's moot, I've simply expanded it from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 07:43, 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EQRIC[edit]

EQRIC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO, at the moment the only chart success he's had has been on iTunes and Spotify. Can't find significant coverage of him in WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions. Captain Calm (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Anyone can start an Instagram or other social media page, often not under their own name, so unreliable and/or self-serving. Acabashi (talk) 13:21, 8 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solitude, Dominance, Tragedy[edit]

Solitude, Dominance, Tragedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. The coverage that I found of this album appears to mostly consist of passing mentions or not in-depth about the album itself, thus not satisfying the "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." of criterion #1. There has been no evidence that it charted to pass #2 either, with sverigetopplistan returning no results TheSandDoctor Talk 04:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC); updated 18:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Kantanen[edit]

Susanna Kantanen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NSKATE is about figure skating, and she is a speed skater.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom and Entrepreneurship Foundation[edit]

Freedom and Entrepreneurship Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tried but can't find anything that satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH and as pointed out by Piotrus in their prod rational current sources seem insufficient to justify this article passing WP:GNG. GSS 💬 07:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 07:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 07:09, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rom Shrestha[edit]

Rom Shrestha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, fails WP:ANYBIO, fails WP:NCRIC. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:44, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Indy Lights season[edit]

1992 Indy Lights season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a stats directory per WP:NSPORTSEVENT. I would redirect this to a team page per the guidance, but that guidance isn't applicable here. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not for article cleanup, however, this is just a collection of stats with no prose to speak of outside of the lede. A "bit light" is a gross understatement. I pointed out that this issue isn't just found in these four seasons but in all the seasons from 1977 to 2020, which was reportedly cancelled but hasn't been deleted as an article yet. Not saying I am for deletion but I am pointing out that the nominator isn't wrong about their assertion in regards to this nomination or the others proposed. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:11, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Indy Lights season[edit]

2000 Indy Lights season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a stats directory per WP:NSPORTSEVENT. I would redirect this to a team page per the guidance, but that guidance isn't applicable here. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:12, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Indy Lights season[edit]

1994 Indy Lights season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a stats directory per WP:NSPORTSEVENT. I would redirect this to a team page per the guidance, but that guidance isn't applicable here. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:11, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Indy Lights season[edit]

1996 Indy Lights season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a stats directory per WP:NSPORTSEVENT. I would redirect this to a team page per the guidance, but that guidance isn't applicable here. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:09, 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 keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Quevedo[edit]

Gabriella Quevedo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Sources are links to videos or performances or broken links.
edit: I would just like to clarify further. I looked through the citations and there are about two or three acceptable ones; most are merely performance videos, performance schedules, event listings, YouTube videos, or just completely irrelevant. Nikolaih☎️📖 04:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that many articles have almost no sources remain up for a long time and I think that is unacceptable. I won't go through all the sources but so many of them are just links to concerts, performances, videos, none of which are acceptable as references. As I said, a few are fine. Besides the references, she fails WP:BIO which is the primary concern. Nikolaih☎️📖 22:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikolaih I see far more than two or three acceptable sources, so it's difficult to understand more exactly which ones you're referring to. For example, there are a number of Swedish newspaper articles that are paywalled or not in the online edition (but accessible through Mediearkivet). Do you count these? /Julle (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those that I don't have access to I consider are fine. However, very few of the sources actually support her notability. (Having the sources are okay but they do not help an argument for WP:BIO). Just looking through the first couple dozen, I know for sure that sources 2,5,6,9,10,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,21,22,... do not support notability. Overall I don't believe this article is yet ready to be included. Nikolaih☎️📖 05:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Gabriella Quevedo a famous person worthy of an encyclopedia entry? Sorry I don't know how to vote for or against.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Smoking in Canada. There is a consensus to cover this topic in the article smoking in Canada for now. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking cessation programs in Canada[edit]

Smoking cessation programs in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic, unnecessary sub-article, has been a stub for over a decade with no attempt to improve. Will always be incomplete. Win98fan (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:02, 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Top-earning Filipino celebrities[edit]

Top-earning Filipino celebrities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, original research, outdated, and not notable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:48, 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. Sandstein 08:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Bharathi[edit]

Sanjay Bharathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as a director or an actor. Fails WP: Nactor#1. He has played the lead role in one film Naanga and supporting roles in seven other films. There are no other notable roles. This is WP: Too soon unless he plays the lead role again. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:06, 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.
  1. ^ www.facebook.com/ameliapresleymusic
  2. ^ www.Instagram.com/ameliapresleymusic
  3. ^ https://www.arsenal.com/news/arteta-willock-pepe-and-balogun
More