< 7 October	9 October >

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. JGHowes ^talk 01:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bollywood villain actors[edit]

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

This seems like a rather pointless thing to list people for. ★Trekker (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously WP:OR and WP:POV issues. Ajf773 (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of WP:POV issues. Balle010 (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list like this will always have major issues; one person's villain is another person's antihero; how many sources need to call someone a villain before they can be listed here? What if someone has more than one 'landmark role'? What if someone almost always plays a protagonist but has one notable antagonist role? Should they be listed here? This whole article looks like someone's own personal project and isn't appropriate for Wikipedia at all Spiderone 08:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have numerous lists of villains and so the concept and classification is well-established here. It seems easy to source notable examples – see the Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: This isn't a list of villains, its a list of Bollywood actors who have played villains.★Trekker (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Close enough. I am familiar with Hollywood actors who were known for playing villains, such as Wallace Beery and Jack Palance. My impression is that Bollywood productions are quite meolodramatic and stereotyped and so the concept will be especially strong there. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Close enough" isnt really good enough in my opinion. There are tons of American actors who are known for playing villains, but I don't think listing people by role type is very Wikipedia fitting.★Trekker (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's better than the nomination's "rather pointless". See WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah no. Can't agree with that.★Trekker (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and contravenes the policy of WP:ANTAGONIST.--Ab207 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point re. WP:ANTAGONIST. I was not aware of that previously. Spiderone 17:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANTAGONIST is a bad point taken out of context. It refers to articles about individual films in which "a well-written plot summary should convey such roles". The topic we have here is different and the relevant guideline is WP:LISTN which it clearly passes. See Times of India, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this article lists actors, not their characters.★Trekker (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actors cannot be labelled as antagonists, which is what the list is doing. So its well within the context, in my view. --Ab207 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree it should be deleted.★Trekker (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:OR and WP:POV issues // Timothy :: talk 20:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at per nom. William Harris (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks almost a joke, even a speedy delete would be in place. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An actor who plays a villain in one film could play a hero in another. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Pointless list. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Spiderone how would we decide what belongs on the list? Spudlace (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Zing^(Talk!) 03:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is pure original research, and POV. Just one example Boman Irani′s character is not a villain in the film Munnabhai MBBS. The character is simply someone who is not on the same terms with protagonist. Thats not even addressing the sourcing concerns. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ndayizeye Emmanuel[edit]

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

The only relatively good source is this but it is an interview hence not independent of him. He won a non notable award (Made in Rwanda Awards) hence doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR. A before search shows subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. This appears to be a case of borderline/bare notability. Subject is also a musician but doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. Balle010 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet GNG, BASIC or NACTOR. BEFORE showed only promos, mentions, etc. Notability and sourcing guidelines should be strictly followed for BLPs. // Timothy :: talk 02:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Fails notability requirements, although could be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and/or a reflection of the nature of Rwanda's RS media as much as of his own lack of notability. All the same, should be deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Alex-h (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 14:14, 15 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduphobia in academia[edit]

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

This appears to be an WP:ATTACKPAGE created in response to the criticism inserted at Love Jihad. If that's not the case, it is at least a WP:POVFORK of Hinduphobia (or its current redirect). Proper WP:CFORK may be possible. jps (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning delete. I found the following sources when thinking about whether to nominate this myself (also posted on the article's talk page). The current sources (as noted by Vanamonde93 on the article's talk page) are suspect, and in any event should probably be treated as primary.
- [1] Not a very extensive discussion, although I can't see the whole book.
- Jeffrey Long's encyclopedia entry on the idea casts doubt on whether this is even a coherent concept.
- doi:10.1080/17448727.2013.861697 Could be useful.

It's clear in any event that this would require a fundamental rewrite to comply with policies including WP:NPOV. I am not convinced about notability either. Arguable WP:TNT case. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally created as a Portal, before any edits on Love Jihad page were made. The portal page was deleted due to lack of sufficient related topics, and that is why the contents were reposted as an article. This is not an 'attack page' in any context and the assertion is baseless.

The article requires more editing, however, the unreliability of sources is a dubious contention. Liberalvedantin (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin[reply]

Keep with rewrite. Balle010 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Balle010, Any suggestions for how to do so would be appreciated. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would require a total rewrite even if notability were established, which I highly doubt is the case — it seems to be pulling together disparate complaints from suspect sources in order to push a POV, rather than writing about a well-defined topic. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, article is one massive WP:NPOV violation and also functions as an attack page, having no article would be better than keeping this around even if it is notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant WP:CFORK, perhaps a WP:POVFORK. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per my comments on the talk page. A viable article could be written about the perceptions of Hinduism in academia, but this cherry-picked and OR-filled page isn't it. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:POVFORK. What a mess. If, per Vanamonde93, something were created, this would not be a useful scaffold. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 13 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political kidnapping[edit]

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

Seems like a load of original research Prisencolin (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is currently just a stub and so it's not much of anything. The topic is notable as it is easy to find sources:

So, per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Currently WP:ITN, this certainly isn't a deletion candidate by any means. If you can bring an article here, you surely can also improve it. Nate • (chatter) 00:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this belongs on wikipedia. Four4shi (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per discussion above. Balle010 (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing found, and the above. I found:

Jackson, S. G. (1973). Surviving the long night: An autobiographical account of a political kidnapping. New York: Vanguard Press
Peterson, R. E. (1978). Political Kidnapping: A New Risk in International Business. Interfaces, 8(2), 46-53.
File-Muriel, M. D. P. (2013). An exploration of the social effectiveness of political kidnapping testimonios in Colombia. Journal of Contemporary Anthropology, 4(1), 2.
Brach, R. S. (1971). The Inter-American Convention on the Kidnapping of Diplomats. Colum. J. Transnat'l L., 10, 392.
Turner, M. (1998). Kidnapping and politics. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 26(2), 145-160.
Akpan, N. S. (2010). Kidnapping in Nigeria’s Niger Delta: an exploratory study. Journal of Social Sciences, 24(1), 33-42.
Van Dyk, J. (2017). The trade: my journey into the labyrinth of political kidnapping. PublicAffairs.
Concannon, Diana M. (2013), "Political Kidnapping", Kidnapping, Elsevier, pp. 133–143, ISBN 978-0-12-408065-2, retrieved 2020-10-09

Glee^anon 04:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per all of the sources cited above, but especially Political Kidnapping: An Introductory Overview. Right cite (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the reliable sources search at the top of the AFD and a lot of results. I'm surprised this isn't a category. Dream Focus 14:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources about a notable topic. Plenty of room for expansion without getting into any specific case. --Enos733 (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Although article needs more work but it is a notable topic with available sources, Alex-h (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. While it can be vastly improved, it's a decent start, and has been in the news lately. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 13 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insoumise[edit]

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

Fails WP:NONPROFIT, WP:NORG. Neighborhood libraries/bookstores/infoshops like this one is generally not notable. Graywalls (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacks notability. Could be in an article about the neighborhood. Balle010 (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted, independent bookstores aren't automatically notable just because they exist — it's certainly possible for an independent bookstore to clear the bar if it has enough reliable source coverage about it to pass WP:GNG, but that hasn't been shown here: of the five weblinks being shown as sources, three are Blogspot blogs and one is an archived e-mail message on a listserv, none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources — and while one citation is to a real newspaper article, one of those is not enough all by itself. And on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that may not Google, I got absolutely nothing useful: even searching "Insoumise Montreal" to filter out hits on La France Insoumise, I got just 21 hits of which about half were still about La France Insoumise rather than this, and the ones that were about this were just glancing namechecks of its existence (e.g. as a film screening venue in the movie listings) rather than notability-building coverage. And while the French article has a couple more sources than ours does, it still depends mainly on unreliable sources and student media rather than strong coverage — only one footnote (La Presse) that could be copied over from there actually meets a GNG-worthy standard, and even two newspaper articles still isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I've perused the links from the version in other languages. For the unaffiliated/non-primary sources, the bookstore was only covered in brief mentions. Same for a Google Books and Google News search. But then there's stuff like this Canadian alt weekly and Le Devoir. I'd be interested if someone has French-language sources we've missed. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 03:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Majuri[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERP, WP:BASIC. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Balle010 (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is never enough on its own to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 12 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 and redirect to Nonholonomic system. JGHowes ^talk 01:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Route dependence[edit]

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

This is supposed to be the page Nonholonomic system, which is what path dependence (physics) redirects to. This page has no new information to include there, and from my experience as a physicist, no one calls it "route dependence", we will discuss non-conservative systems, path dependence, etc. Route dependence is, I assume, the author's own term. Most Google results for the term actually load the term "path dependence" outside of this article and its copies. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Google book search does have a few results, several mention "route dependence of time". While I am pretty sure the term is not notable in the way it is used on the page, it could go either way and I'm fine with merging into nonholonomic system.Footlessmouse (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Path dependence" is definitely the preferred term, we already have an article on that, and the content here would need serious rewriting before it could be merged, so simply improving the existing article makes more sense. XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and improve existing article. Balle010 (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term has been used in the context of gravitational physics, e.g., the 1966 paper Route dependence of the gravitational red shift, but overall it did not catch on and is not well supported by multiple independent sources. Not a neologism, but not worth a redirect either. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 02:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nonholonomic system.--Srleffler (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to path dependence (otherwise nonholonomic system): I agree with the delete !votes here, but path dependence is a clear viable redirect target due to the synonym pair path/route. If "route dependence" is clearly a physics-specific term as a whole, then nonholonomic system is a more viable redirect target, but my searches turn up all kinds of subjects including: physiology, more physiology, [ https://doi.org/10.1248/cpb.25.680 pharmaceuticals], material chemistry, nutrition, air traffic logistics, general traffic logistics, etc. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:51, 13 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 Rick Riordan Presents. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

City of the Plague God[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Only coverage is a less-than-one-sentence "sneak preview" here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Maybe also toosoon. Balle010 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, does not meet WP:NBOOK, not every book of a series has separate reviews for a standalone article, especially one that is yet to be published, way WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rick Riordan Presents. It's possible that this may gain enough coverage to justify an article once it actually releases, but right now this just doesn't have the coverage to establish notability. I think that a redirect would be best in this situation since the main page does answer some questions to a degree - specifically that this is a book in the Rick Riordan Presents series and the basic gist of what the series is meant to be. When/if the coverage comes about, the redirect can be removed and fleshed out from there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ReaderofthePack, I realize that this AfD is about the book and not the series, but it's not transparently clear to me that the series/imprint is notable either. City of the Plague God, Rick Riordan Presents, and many of the other books in the series were all created recently in an arguable walled garden, in case that makes a difference to your analysis. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might and I was concerned about that some - I'll take a look and see if there is enough sourcing to establish notability. It looks like the imprint serves as a sort of defacto universe of sorts, akin to the Percy Jackson series, so I think that if there are reviews for the books this may help establish notability. It does need to be cleaned up to be more clear about whether the universes are the same or if this is just a case of it being a series/imprint where each universe is standalone. I'll take a look at this tonight. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some major cleanup to the article and I think it'd pass muster now. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rick Riordan Presents. This is a clear alternative to deletion and the target page could contain information useful to a person interested in the book. Also it's irrelevant at this AfD whether or not the series is notable (I suspect it is, but haven't looked because it's not what's up for discussion). If this were to be redirected and the target page is deleted this will end up deleted as well. But if this is redirected and the book later proves notable (which is a bit of a toss-up in my mind) we've upheld policy by preserving content. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, on revisiting this, have struck out "delete", no harm to redirect as a term of wikireader interest. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rick Riordan Presents - As the book is not yet out, and there is very little coverage of it so far, it is WP:TOOSOON for it to have its own article. Redirecting it to the article on the franchise it belong to, where it is already listed, would be appropriate for now, though, and if more sources appear once it is released, it can be spun back out into a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:44, 15 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) 19:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert William Trenchard[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CHESS, took part in a few tournaments without winning any of them. Sophia91 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sophia91 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Balle010 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - participation in the very strong Vienna 1898 chess tournament with the world's leading players of the time, and representing Britain in several Anglo-American cable chess matches is enough to get him over the line. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not enough notable chess success, and does not meet the criteria in WP:NCHESS. Was clear last place in the Vienna tournament with only one win. --Alan Islas (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re-opened as closing admin for further discussion and addition of sources to meet GNG.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chess-related deletion discussions.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JGHowes ^talk 15:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He represented Great Britain in the cable matches, which have their own article here. That's a high honour to be bestowed on any player. In addition, one of the great chroniclers of British Chess, PW Sergeant found him noteworthy enough to mention on several pages of his book A Century of British Chess. Brittle heaven (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the extra sources found by Brittle heaven, which have now been added to the article. It's difficult to judge playing strength in an era long before there were Grandmaster titles and tournaments held all over the world to compete in, but the Anglo-American matches were certainly prestigious and he did manage to defeat Emanuel Lasker (in a non-tournament game) in 1890, when Lasker was arguably the strongest player in the world.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:06, 23 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Turner[edit]

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

Fails WP:CHESS, never won an important chess tournament, his only claim to "fame" is apparently being a murder victim in the premises of the chess magazine "Chess Review", where he was employed. Sophia91 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sophia91 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Strong player, participant in two US championships and a champion of the US's strongest chess club of the time (Manhattan). Has two wins against Fischer. Fame is not dependent on getting murdered. Article is properly sourced. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to barely meet WP:BASIC, not only because of the coverage of his tragic death, but also because quite a few of his games appear in chess game analyses, mainly on youtube. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was a strong player, and a mentor to Bobby Fischer, and so his murder generated enough coverage to meet GNG [2][3]. P-K3 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better keep he seems to be a small chess legend, however formally didn't win internatinal or national championships. The arguments above illustrate that it's a tough choice if to keep or delete. His murder really helped him to gain a decent media coverage. --Synhuliak (talk) 19:06, 13 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 18:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myroslav Turiansky[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCHESS, only won some local championships (club, city, region levels). Sophia91 (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sophia91 (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCHESS. There is very little coverage on him/her, so does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does this dosne't help at all: "He finished 10th in the U.S. Open Chess Championship at Milwaukee 1953". --Synhuliak (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synhuliak it certainly does help, but I not enough to establish notability, in my opinion. Although it is a national event, 10th place is not enough to make it worth an article... Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 20:44, 13 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 deleted as G12. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass 2020 question 1 text[edit]

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

Not an encyclopedia article, it's just the text of a bill, which is linked externally from the main article's page. ... discospinster _talk 17:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an article. There is an article, Massachusetts Right to Repair Initiative (2020),, on the subject; that's plenty. This would probably qualify to be placed on Wikisource, but I'm not convinced it's worthwhile; not every PD EL needs to be added to Wikisource. TJRC (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copy and paste of a bill. Might be good on another project, like Wikisource, but not here, as there is already an article for that. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 10:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the text of the bill is protected by copyright. This is excessive non-free content, and not suitable for inclusion here or in Wikisource either.— Diannaa (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: CSD tagged for copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by NonsensicalSystem (talk • contribs) 14:27, October 9, 2020 (UTS) (UTC)

As a proposed edict of government, this text is not subject to copyright. I agree (above) with its deletion, but copyright was not an issue. More at edict of government and Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.. TJRC (talk) 15:41, 9 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 18:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Teasley[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCHESS, not a notable chess player at all. Sophia91 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sophia91 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCHESS and I can't find any evidence of sources (searched both google and my university library databases) that would help her pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. No indication that she meets WP:ANYBIO either. Samsmachado (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for chess players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 12 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 18:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Agg[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or for a senior international team. Agg also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tried to find sources for GNG but could only find news article about her transfer, there was a reasonably lengthy article from the FA but nothing more Spiderone 18:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. William Harris (talk) 03:30, 10 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 18:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Innocent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non-notable artist, as per my source analysis below. It is unfortunately the product of a massive SEO/paid publication ploy to try and legitimize non-notable people and businesses by flooding google and other sites (like Wikipedia) with paid for PR.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.jasoninnocent.com/about	his own website	as a primary source it is reliable		✘ No
https://blackartstory.org/2017/08/21/profile-jason-innocent/	just a blog rehashing his website bio	it's a blog, no evidence of editorial standards		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20190127070909/http://www.idolmag.co.uk/arts/jason-innocent-examines-ego-donald-trump/	an interview	it may be reliable to glean some primary information but I hardly find content published by "guest editors" on run of the mill vanity spam sites to be reliable		✘ No
https://elucidmagazine.com/index.php/pinstyle/item/1158-jason-innocent	this is user generated content	no indication there are any editorial standards, despite a claim of a 300k readership (which appears to be unsupported/fabricated) and no author		✘ No
https://grittyvibes.com/2020/07/fine-artist-jason-innocent-is-pushing-boundaries/	this is a paid for publication	paid for piece, published by a guest editor (the author of the article is not one of their "staff") and even so, this is a small time PR blog that accepts pay for pub	no, see also this "get discovered" is PR speak for "we will publish anything you send us for the right price"	✘ No
https://urbanistamagazine.uk/artist-focus-jason-innocent/	like the others before it, this is a paid for publication, with no established editorial practices or staff	see above, it also allows indiscriminate guest posting		✘ No
https://blackartstory.org/2020/05/19/masculinity-in-crisis-a-review-of-masculinity-2020-a-peculiar-film-by-jason-innocent/	see #2			✘ No
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/jason-innocent/39-drawings/	This was the most shocking to me when I dug in, Kirkus is generally independent and reliable except for their "Indie Review"	See here for why, specifically "how it works" point #5		✘ No
https://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/blogcritics/article/Book-Review-39-Drawings-by-Jason-Innocent-12168829.php		This is just republished from blogcritics, where it was later removed from their site entirely		✘ No
https://www.swaggermagazine.com/home/culture/the-unorthodox-rise-of-jason-innocent-the-king-of-brooklyn-art-scene/	This site allows guest content without identifying it from editorial staff content - it's also unclear whether they even have "editorial staff"	Read the source and see for yourself - there's no evidence this current incarnation of this magazine is reliable and based on the significant grammar and spelling errors in the article, I have sincere doubts.	see also this	✘ No
https://ventsmagazine.com/2020/07/29/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-jason-innocent/	it's an interview	As has been repeatedly established, Vents was sniped and bought out by an SEO firm a few years ago and publishes interviews for pay, as well as other content, without identifying it.		✘ No
https://thelosangelestribune.com/2020/10/04/jason-innocent-a-black-artist-innovation-and-experimentation/	This is what inspired this AFD - Los Angeles Tribune was once a respectable, historic african-american paper, it ceased function several years ago	website was sniped in May by another SEO "publisher" , it's just a mix of the same text from prior sources		✘ No
https://www.rough-online.co.uk/artist-jason-innocent-announces-upcoming-sole-exhibition-on-24th-october	paid for publication	see the massive banner here		✘ No
https://respect-mag.com/2020/03/jason-innocent-invites-you-to-beyond-the-bars-10-freedom-plans/	another site which changed hands at some point, this is a paid for piece	as per above and source #13, specifically just rehashed PR speak from all the other paid sources		✘ No
https://urbanistamagazine.uk/masculinity-the-short-documentary-film/	as per #6			✘ No
https://www.rough-online.co.uk/introducing-jason-innocent-the-american-artist	see source #13			✘ No
https://grungecake.com/jason-innocent-car-play/articles/68948	run of the mill blog, allows ugen and solicitations			✘ No
https://ventsmagazine.com/2020/10/01/jason-innocent-releases-new-music-video-for-beauty-in-the-midst-of-chaos/	as per #11			✘ No
https://blackartstory.org/2017/10/12/black-artist-reimaginations-of-the-american-flag-in-art/	as per #2			✘ No
https://www.reignland.co/jason-innocent-car-play/		run of the mill fancily designed blog		✘ No
https://www.respectmyregion.com/jason-innocent-car-play/		clothing brand turned fancy blog, not rs		✘ No
https://www.thehypemagazine.com/videogallery/jason-innocent-car-play/		same deal as vents, pay for publication		✘ No
https://www.sleek-mag.com/article/anti-trump-art/	single paragraph quote, not independent	? Don't know the general reputation of this publication	as per above	✘ No
https://respect-mag.com/2019/09/jason-innocent-announces-his-exclusive-solo-art-exhibition/	per #14			✘ No
http://artinbrooklyn.com/2016/08/jason-innocent-wall-2016/	random blog			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Praxidicae (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources all appear to be paid promotion. Even the respectable Seattle PI source is a republished item from something called "blogcritics.org". GNG fail based on non-independent sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, with such a stringent approach to sources, one can effectively delete 80% of the modern street artists. I don't have any special opinion about Innocent but my point is that street art notability has its specifics. Here is a couple of tattoo artists, you can easily put on deletion discussion list: Myra Brodsky, Corey Miller (tattoo artist) - the sources are of the same kind and I can't see what is more "notable" in them in comparison with miserable Jason Innocent. You can either call all this art non notable "trash" and "bullshit artists" (I'm kind of in favor it, honestly) or set up more obvious standards. I also propose to establish Wikipedia Art Inquisition Committee and let Praxidicae be the Grand Inquisitor in the best traditions of Tomás de Torquemada. It is not even a sarcasm, it looks like we are getting there...--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:554B:2E1D:AE38:D5DF (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry we have enough common sense to see through your poor attempt to flood the internet with paid for vanity spam, but I'm glad we can both agree that this type of dubious, deceptive bullshit doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, you are amazing. It seems you start attacking everyone who disagrees with your opinion=)) - this is really works as a automatically with you. All I want to say - I disagree with 50% of your work because you are to fast to judge and delete and I saw a lot of speedy deletions contested on your talk page. Your approach is always see negative side of every case this why Wikipedia is becoming "better". I'd give an artist a page anytime over thousands of Wikipedia pages for small shops, "internet celebrities" and influencers. And I couldn't care less about Jason Innocent but I find your approach (over and over again) close to the methods I detailed in my previous comment. Good luck with deleting, Mrs. Grand Inquisitor=))--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:68C1:643D:947C:438C (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're unaware, IP but this is a discussion about the article, not me. If you want to bring up my behavior or edits WP:ANI is the place to do it. Praxidicae (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — “Stringent approach to sources” of course! Praxidicae is doing the right thing else we risk our exclusivity & become LinkedIn. Agree with nom, no coverage in reliable sources independent of them could be observed. Celestina007 (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear analysis done by Prax, not more could be said, other than a delete for this one. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 17:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Devokewater (talk) 14:16, 15 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 18:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Karen Bass[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork from Karen Bass. Normally we only spin off "Political positions of [Person]" as a separate topic from the existing biographical article for much higher-level figures, such as highly influential senators, state governors or presidents -- Category:Political positions of members of the United States House of Representatives has articles like this for just six other people besides Karen Bass (discounting a couple of additional cases where the title just exists as a redirect to the biographical article), and of those six, every last manjack or womanjack one of them has been either a presidential candidate or a Speaker of the House, with not a single one of these existing for anybody else who has only been a regular representative. And furthermore, Bass's biographical article already contains information about her political positions as it is, so a separate article about stuff that's already in her BLP anyway isn't critically important for us to have -- even "merging" this back to the BLP wouldn't make it much longer than it already is, since most of the information is already there. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete precisely per nom. Unnecessary to have a separate article at all. BD2412 T 16:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary fork as a merge is impracticable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nom summed this up well. // Timothy :: talk 12:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Less Unless (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD-R and WP:CHEAP Lightburst (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK. Nobody is going to type in this long title looking specifically for her positions outside of her main article. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Positions of note should be highlighted in the subject's main article Spudlace (talk) 03:21, 15 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 18:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freda Ayisi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or for a senior international team. Ayisi also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one source [4] covering her in depth. The rest is just passing mentions in things like match reports. Not close to meeting GNG Spiderone 18:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reached same conclusions as the nominator, and Spiderone's vote fully settles it. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which doesn't appear to satisfy the GNG. The Islington Gazette article is in-depth coverage, but pretty much everything else is routine (e.g., transfer announcements) or superficial (e.g., violent conduct incident with an opposing goalkeeper). Jogurney (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Interesting behavior in the contribution history. Hmlarson (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the restored ref [5] is reliable and independent but, in my view, not quite enough for GNG. I'd possibly sway to keep if there were one more source of similar strength along with that one and the Islington Gazette Spiderone 08:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ref is about her scoring a goal which is routine coverage. It also credits a goal to "Ghanaian-born English international Raphael Yankey" when it was London born Rachel Yankey who scored. Dougal18 (talk) 10:53, 14 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey Woman Tour[edit]

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. The original proposal was reverted by an anonymous IP on the grounds that "the article is interesting", which is obviously not grounds for notability. Dylanvt (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Article is non-notable, with no coverage from secondary sources other than references on that the tour had happened. Should be deleted or redirected per WP:NTOUR. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Judas Priest in the absence of any evidence to suggest it is notable enough for a stand-alone article Spiderone 08:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, unsourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR. None of the three references are reliable sources. Aspects (talk) 03:07, 15 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 18:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezer, Fulton County, Kentucky[edit]

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

Rennick doesn't include Ebenezer in his Fulton County listing, but his index has more entries. The two populated places named Ebenezer in there are in Mercer County and Muhlenberg County; the only Ebenezer in Fulton County is Ebenezer Church. County history does not mention an Ebenezer. Topos show an isolated Ebenezer Church. The most recent topo shows the cemetery. Apparently, there was nothing more than a church and associated cemetery at Ebenezer in Fulton County, so it fails WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNIS has a duplicate entry at the exact same coordinates which clearly identifies the location as Ebernezer Cemetery, it seems the place was incorrectly entered again as a populated place when Rennick's maps were transcribed. Cemeteries are not presumed inherently notable in WP:GEOLAND, and as there are no reliable sources covering this one it does not pass WP:GNG. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 22:35, 8 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 Abbess with a hatnote there. I noted that the articles Priest and Episcopalian Church do not cover the topic "Reverend Mother", but there's no reason to delete the page when simply redirecting it to the primary topic will have the same effect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Mother[edit]

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

This is a WP:TWODABS page where one of the meanings offered has no real-world significance. I would delete this page, redirect the title to the real-world topic, Abbess, merge the content about the salutation there, and add a hatnote pointing to the article containing the science fiction usage. BD2412 T 16:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is also the courtesy title of a female priest. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So far as I can tell, that proposed meaning currently fails WP:DABMENTION with respect to links added to the page. Perhaps a better solution would be to redirect this title to Ecclesiastical titles and styles, which notes several uses of "Reverend Mother" (although these are indexed, and not ambiguous to one another). BD2412 T 18:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, but I respectfully disagree. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 14 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 Irvine, Kentucky. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Lick, Kentucky[edit]

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

Between Rennick's index and the topographic maps, this is either a very small stream named Sweet Lick Branch, or a small hill named Sweet Lick Knob. Given that neither are exact name matches, and information beyond coordinates and the fact that it exists (and that it's unclear if this is the hill or the creek), I'd say this fails WP:GEOLAND by a mile. Either way, the claim that this is an unincorporated community appears to be blatantly false. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Sweet Lick" is a name given to a knob (hill/mountain, Sweet Lick Knob), a creek (Sweet Lick Branch), a road (Sweet Lick Road), and now a mobile park (Sweet Lick Mobile Park). The mobile park is on the road, which follows the creek, which flows towards the knob where another creek joins it. That makes it an area, aka community. The knob and part of the creek are just outside the city limits of Irvine, KY, which makes that unincorporated Estill County. There is a residential area in that unincorporated area; predominantly Wall Street. The Estill Springs property was at the join where the creek meets the knob. The 1850's book [6] reports "The chemical examination at the fountain head, of the Sweet Lick Estill Springs, gave, as the principal constituents... The Irvine Sulphur Spring contains the same ingredients, but in smaller quantities. They are both saline sulphuretted waters..." Estill Springs is at the foot of the knob. There was a rather famous spa-resort hotel (Estill Springs Hotel) on the site for over a hundred years (up until 1924 when it burned down). [7] This 1970's reproduced article [8] says "The Estill Springs, half a mile from Irvine... The view from the top of Sweet Lick Knob, at the foot of which the white sulphur water gushed out..." Some more stuff: [9] [10]. Normal Op (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irvine, Kentucky, the mailing address of the trailer park. Not opposed to creating an article on the Knob or creek if enough sources are available. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have been a transcription error by GNIS. There are two features on the map called Sweet Lick: Sweet Lick Knob, a small hill and Sweet lick, a small stream that flows into White Oak Creek. The location of this supposed settlement is exactly on top of the label for the stream in the USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic maps, which are what Rennick was annotating with place names. The settlement nearby is clearly identified as "Irvine" or "North Irvine". If either the hill or stream are notable then an article should be recreated to cover them but it appears this settlement is fictitious. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 23:11, 8 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 18:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony, Kentucky[edit]

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

I think this one's spurious. The GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick, but neither Rennick's Fulton County document nor his index mention a Harmony in Fulton County. There's apparently a Harmony north of Frankfort, but that's on the other side of the state. GNIS says it's supposedly on the Crutchfield small-scale topo, but it's not. County history mentions a Harmony Church, but no community of this name. Given that there's no indication of a community here, it was probably just the church with this name in Fulton County. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be another transcription error by GNIS. GNIS lists a Harmony Cemetery less than 2 miles away, but they've messed up that listing too and put it as being in Hickman county, when it's actually in Hickman, Fulton County. A check of google maps shows that this cemetery exists at the coordinates given. As this place appears to be a misplaced cemetery and not a settlement it should be deleted as it fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 23:43, 8 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 18:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad K. Azarian[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NPROF. He won an award from the Indiana section of the Mathematical Association of America, but I don't think that's sufficient for notability. Low citations on Scholar, and not an endowed chair. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Publishing a lot is not a notability criterion by itself; those publications need to make an impact. Mathematics is a low-citation field but even so his Google Scholar citations are so low that I don't see any support for WP:PROF#C1. A regional-level distinguished service award (not a national one, for being on the executive board and running some competitions, apparently) is not enough for #C2. No other claim to notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly explained above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The fact that it's written like a CV could be fixed by rewriting if WP:PROF were met, but I see no way to make a case that WP:PROF is met. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Unfortunately, as already stated by nom, Xxanthippe & XOR'easter, I too do not see how WP:PROF is met. Celestina007 (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find evidence of passing WP:NPROF nor WP:GNG. No papers with a lot of citations (even by the standards in algebra, although there are numerous low-citation papers) and little independent recognition. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:39, 13 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. Disregarding paid editor input. Sandstein 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Schumann Capital[edit]

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

Borderline G11 promotional article for a non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them hence doesn’t satisfy WP:ORG. A before search reveals hits in user generated sources & sponsored posts/ mere announcements. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as a G11/WP:NCORP fail. I tagged it as a G11 yesterday, and it was deleted. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AP, Situations such as this could be very frustrating, a good thing I opened this AFD, so in future a G4 would come in handy. Celestina007 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote the article to remove promotional content and add more reputable sources. I am happy to edit further if needed, but I would really appreciate this article not being deleted as this is a noteworthy company in the impact investing/sustainable finance space. Russell5495 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of significant, independent, reliable, and secondary sources in article in support of company notability:

Wealth & Finance International ^[1]
International Investment ^[2]
Business Insider ^[3]
wealthadviser ^[4] Russell5495 (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment on References Clearly no attention has been paid to WP:ORGIND as all of those references are based on PR and/or Company Announcements. This from Wealth & Finance is a press release. This from International Investment doesn't discuss the company, only the fund that was launched, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It was also entirely based on this announcement from the company. This from Business Insider is a Press Release. This from Wealth Advisor is discussing the same water fund as the Internation Investment reference above and fails for the same reasons. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Russell5495 is being paid by Thomas Schumann Capital to advocate for this article's continued existence. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I was paid for my original contributions, yes, but all re-writes and advocating have been unpaid and on my own time because I personally think that it is a valid article. Russell5495 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet GNG or NCORP. No direct and indepth SIGCOV from IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 03:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:39, 15 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. Consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Zing^(Talk!) 04:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knob Lick, Estill County, Kentucky[edit]

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

Topos show a "Knob Lick School" and a "Knob Lick Cemetery", Rennick and an old geologist report suggest it is what appears to be a very small stream. The claim of an unincorporated community is completely spurious. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure if it qualifies per WP:NGEO/WP:GEOLAND or not, but I think it may, so I'm going to offer some information here. In the 1850s geographic report nom mentioned, the author did NOT indicate it was a small stream. On pages 139-141 they recount surveying to locate sufficient salts or ores in the knob for extraction. (In Kentucky, a "knob" is a type of hill.) They found some salts in some of the springs and sampled uphill of them. The language used indicates that "Knob Lick" referred to a more extensive area, possible the entire knob — "At Knob Lick the summits are... while the creeks, at the base... If there are any veins of lead ore in the Knob lick country... a line of disturbance runs through the Knob lick country..." So to me, it seems like this "area" was called Knob Lick for almost two hundred years, and though may have been extremely rural in the 1850s, was definitely settled by the mid-1900s. This article [11] has a mention of an unincorporated community thusly: "was born ... 1943... his parents moved to the Knob Lick section of Estill County, Kentucky. He attended the Knob Lick School for eight years ... served the following churches as pastor: Knob Lick Baptist Church, 1962-1963". In Kentucky a "lick" is a common name for an area where wildlife gathered to consume naturally occurring minerals or salts, either pulled from the underground limestone by springs or occurring in the soil where animals would paw at the ground then lick it. These were natural hunting grounds and were given distinct names to aid in communicating a location. This university article describes it similarly. [12] A Kentucky lick is not the same as the Anglo-European term Lick (stream), but fits in with the Mineral lick article. How this stub-article stacks up with WP:NGEO, WP:GEOLAND... I'm not sure (no experience on this), but I'm going to vote Keep — on the basis that it is a longstanding named natural geographic area. Normal Op (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge into List of unincorporated areas of Estill County, together with all other one-liners of this ilk.Staszek Lem (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Or the section in Estill County, Kentucky. I think I'll work on that section which is already there.Normal Op (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Normal Op and Staszek Len: - Check to make sure these are real. A lot of these have been completely spurious, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Pond, Kentucky. I think we can all agree that the ones that are cemeteries or ponds or mines probably don't belong in a list of communities, if there was no permanent human population. A lot of these were created by a single user who was very careless with what they called a "populated place". Hog Farm _Bacon 14:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Hog Farm: I do NOT agree that these places you mass-AfD'd are just cemeteries or were "spuriously added to Wikipedia". I don't know where you are from, but in Kentucky an "area" can have a name, and be settled/populated (albeit sparsely), and it is still considered a community and has a name. The majority of the land mass in Kentucky is "unincorporated area" meaning it is governed a county government and not a city or municipal government. That is all that "unincorporated" means. Cemeteries and mines get their names from the communities they are in, not the other way around. For example, your nomination of Sweet Lick, Kentucky and this one, calling each "a very small stream", were ridiculously cursory WP:BEFORE investigations, including not really reading the reference source you provided. Normal Op (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Normal Op: - I've lived in three states, two of which border Kentucky, and I've spent most of my life on a farm. I know what an unincorporated community is. I know that EVERYTHING in the Midwest has a name. The church my grandparents attended was out in the woods, it appeared to topographic maps, and there was apparently never any other buildings around it. The one room school my grandpa attended appeared on maps for decades, long after it ceased to exist. These are on the maps, and are briefly mentioned in old documents, but are not notable. I will admit that the two Knob Lick and Sweet Lick articles were a little iffy on the AFD. Yes, that was bad on my part. Here's the source calling Sweet Lick a stream. Here's the source calling Knob Lick a stream. There's a bunch of Knob Licks, but the USGS county code for the county applicable there is 21165, which indicates that Knob Lick is a tributary of Drowning Creek (Kentucky). For the record, I also rewrote the Drowning Creek article, as it claimed to be a town, but the topographic maps, Rennick, and the Kentucky River Basin Assessment Report all made it clear that Drowning Creek was a creek. However, aside from the two nominations mentioned above, I think it's almost certain that all of those other ones fail WP:GEOLAND. You know why there's so many of these little articles? Because one user mass-created most of them. For instance, according to the logs, Sawyer, Kentucky and Parkers Lake, Kentucky were created two minutes apart. I haven't looked to see if either of these is real or not, but I think that the time frame shows that little-to-no care was placed in the creation of these. Read WP:GEOLAND as well, most "communities" in the sense of informal neighborhoods or unofficial areas are not going to be notable. If you think that everything that ever existed that has a name needs an article, that'll take a RFC that WT:NGEO which has very little chance of passing. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several older newspaper sources document events and incidents in Knob Lick, establishing that it was the name of a real community where people lived, and not just a mislabeled stream [13] [14] [15] [16]. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:17, 10 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 18:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bunq[edit]

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

Despite mention of controversies, esentially promotional . No general refs meeting WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 09:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very hard to justify under WP:NCORP. Melmann 09:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. Following links are LISTS of articles, not individual articles. Telegraaf NRC Financieel Dagblad gidonb (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Gidonb, there are a lot of articles in those lists. I've taken a look and nothing in those lists strike me as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on announcement or details of products. Can you link to WP:THREE references that you believe meets WP:NCORP (being the applicable WP:SNG for corporations? Thank you! HighKing⁺⁺ 14:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 21:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've reviewed the references but I don't see anything that meets the criteria for establishing notability. While there are references, they're based on company announcements, interviews, etc. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:54, 14 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 Kerala Premier League. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FC Thrissur[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kerala Premier League; not independently notable. Giant Snowman 18:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kerala Premier League or create a seperate section for the clubs; not independently notable. Indianfootball98 (talk) 05:15, 10 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 18:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kochi 5s[edit]

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

Article fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - did get a fair amount of coverage when Michel Salgado guest starred for them in 2016, struggling to find anything outside of that one event though [17] [18] [19] Spiderone 18:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :surely fails GNG Indianfootball98 (talk) 02:54, 11 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 18:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dhinakaran[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable TV station executive Salimfadhley (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VocalIndia (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apart from the Times of India source, there isn't really that much about him. Notability is not inherited from D. G. S. Dhinakaran either Spiderone 19:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spudlace (talk) 03:30, 15 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 18:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Scott (presenter)[edit]

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

Non-notable person who has not received any coverage other than passing mentions due to his work in Quizmania. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:GNG. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable radio presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - one of several late night DJs. Drive time DJs can be notable. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 13 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sambhaji Sasane[edit]

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

Non-notable student who has worked in non-notable films. Fails WP:GNG Srijanx22 (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems like a resume. non notable individual with no independent coverage. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm concerned about the promotional articles so far created by this contributor. His user page claims he has been editing regularly for six years, but in fact he did not create a user profile until 2016 and has made fewer than 50 edits. Deb (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COmment He could be using a different username. I also dont have a user profile. I dont feel having a user page is required at all. ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:30, 14 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 18:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duy Long Nguyen[edit]

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

Article is self-promotion and it's not clear what achievements this person has. There is just a bunch of name-dropping Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 12 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Thor (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Overly in-depth plot information that fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG. None of the non-primary sources constitute significant coverage on the topic. TTN (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN – see this or that or more. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our policies such as WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER; WP:NEXIST; WP:IMPERFECT; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps we should keep this article for now. Especially since some of the Earth-616 versions of Thor are not put into a set index. @Andrew Davidson: is right about his sources. Plus, where would be put the information on the Thor Corps if the page is deleted? --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, or at worst merge to Thor (Marvel Comics) per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot of these actually are more like one-off or short-run characters with the power of Thor. That is to say, if "Thor" was a position rather than a character, and we had a list of fictional holders of the position, they would are here. It's a bit different from the convention of using alternate universe versions of a character which are in fact the same character under a different set of circumstances. BD2412 T 03:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see a problem with this list. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While there are some sources discussing his alternate versions, I don't see why this cannot be merged. Only the most fancruft-loving fans will want to see this split off, and even then, probably not most. This is super niche trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per editor Poitr. William Harris (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From the several reliable sources discussing the topic, it is evident that this nomination passes the criteria discussed at WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. NOTPLOT is not a criteria for deletion, so if that is the crux of this nomination, then rewrite the article. Wikipedia is not a final draft. Ultimately, this is another example of why I have been critical of specific users bulk-nominating everything with Alternate versions in the title (usually with the same rationale on every one).

Although a great many of these lists do not pass GNG, several of them actually do, such as Alternative versions of Batman (which I plan to nominate for rediscussion after it was mindlessly lumped in with several others despite receiving heavy coverage), and to a lesser extent, Alternative versions of Deadpool as examples. If Alternative versions of Spider-Man gets nominated (which is heavily covered and even has entire storylines and films based around it), that will further solidify my point. Dark knight 2149 04:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep On the fence about this one, but I tend to agree with the rationale above about how this is about separate individuals with the moniker of Thor, which sets its apart from other similar "alternate comics" articles. Rhino131 (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the main article per User:Piotrus. Screenrant and CBR are the same company, and they've been a point of controversy between Wikipedia editors. They have a shaky editorial reputation with questionable standards, and write mostly clickbait articles full of plot details, which is what Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. The only source providing any out of universe detail is this, and you need more than a WP:TRIVIALMENTION to verify WP:NOTABILITY. If this article does not improve it should be folded into another notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, essentially per Andrew Davidson, above, especially sources including Screen Rant, and Comic Book Resources, as noted, above. Right cite (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 18:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Playfair[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not adequately referenced as having a stronger claim to passing WP:NACTOR than he had at the time of the first AFD discussion. As always, NACTOR is not automatically passed just because the article has acting roles listed in it — at this point he's still "known" almost entirely for supporting and guest roles and/or short films, with no strong evidence that any of his roles count as major ones. The sourcing isn't adequate to get him over WP:GNG for them either, as four of the five footnotes just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of not being about him to any non-trivial degree. There is one source that actually has him as its main subject, which is a start, but it doesn't clinch him as notable all by itself if it's the only such source in play. As always, actors do not automatically get an inclusion freebie just because they exist: they still need a stronger notability claim, such as multiple significant roles (which is not the same thing as "all roles") and/or notable acting awards, and they still need more than just one hit of media coverage that's actually about them. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2017-08 ✗ delete

Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create, 2017-10 ✗ G4, 2017-08 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 8 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Bhasskar (web series)[edit]

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

The provided references are not reliable independent coverage. fails WP:RS. Previously declined the draft. The episodes section is copied from previous draft that clearly indicates WP:COI and WP:PAID. DMySon 05:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMySon 05:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon 05:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the reason it was declined at AFC was because there is this article in mainspace already. The references in the article show enough coverage for a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 8 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 18:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Moiz Balkhi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable businessperson. Used sources are unreliable and known for being highly promotional (WP:HUFFCON, WP:FORBESCON, Inc. Magazine, Mashable), his own website WPBeginner, a book discussing his website for a few pages with only a short mention of Balkhi himself and some routine coverage from when he bought a team. Some voted keep in the previous AfD with similarly unreliable sources like Entrepreneur and Mashable, with one bizarre claim that "United Nations" recognized him as Top 100 Entrepreneurs under 30, cited to another unreliable website. As far I know, United Nations issues no such recognition or lists. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a highly self-promotional bio. Sources seem fairly unreliable, the only reason it seems to have been voted "keep" previously was because of the UN "Top 100 Entrepreneurs under 30" claim, but after a fair amount of research, I agree with initiator that this list does not seem to exist. If Syed is notable for anything it would be as the founder of "Awesome Motive" for the Wordpress Plugin work, would consider a redirect to "Awesome Motive" if that page existed, but otherwise should be deleted per WP:Bio in current state. Danihan (talk) 16:07, 12 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 07:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Fritz[edit]

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

Doing my part of NPP reviewing, I tried BEFORE but couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, along with those "already provided" in the article. "Lentz, Harris M. (2001). Science Fiction, Horror & Fantasy Film and Television Credits: Filmography, the cited book in the article has only passing mentions about Nikki Fritz. It doesn't also appear to pass WP:ENT. Comments please. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 18:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 18:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment considering the films in which she got featured, possibly we may get her passing WP:NACTOR ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 14:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (^talk) 12:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing is king. Without sources, we cannot support a claim of notability. NACTOR/NENT are just presumptions and even state that meeting them does not guarantee inclusion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:34, 16 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. Sandstein 18:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ayatollahs[edit]

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

Ayatollah is an honorific title, and its usage in such a way is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. It's like having a List of His Excellencies or List of Right Honourables. This list is not comparable to List of popes or List of current Maraji, because "Ayatollah" is not a religious position. Secondly, Ayatollah is a title in use since the mid 20th century in Iran (See Ayatollahs#Usage by location), so it is not applicable to a 17th century Indian. Inclusion of a person in such a list, would also prone it to POV issues (See Ayatollah#Political connotations and discussions made in the talkpage Talk:List of Ayatollahs#Syed Aqeel-ul-Gharavi Talk:List of Ayatollahs#Hosseini Nassab self-proclamation). I propose deleting this list. Pahlevun (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have a well developed and long lasting category system at category:Ayatollahs that corresponds to this list, which belies the nominator’s claims that this is not a proper way to index individuals. The talk page links the nom gives are just about individual entries, not questioning whether the list should exist at all. Can you point to prior project or talk page discussion on this broader question? If this AFD is the first place this content claim has been made, I don’t think it’s the best forum to be introducing a subject-specific question that may likely need expert knowledge to resolve. postdlf (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: It has been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 14#Ayatollahs and grand ayatollahs and my point is that "Ayatollah", unlike a Marja', is no religious position. It is simply a honorific title without a clear criteria for inclusion. There is no clear criteria for being addressed to as an "Ayatollah", which is also on Wikipedia a violation MOS:TITLES. Pahlevun (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That CFD resulted in no consensus, and demonstrated a disagreement with your characterization of the subject and its significance. So that again weighs against your AFD here. I'd suggest continuing discussion on an appropriate Wikiproject or article talk page, and waiting until you get a higher level of participation as well as a clear consensus before trying to delete anything else. postdlf (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: Which place do you think is the right place discuss this? Pahlevun (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLNT and WP:NOTDUP. The list should stay; this is not the forum to discus individual entries. schetm (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schetm: The question is not whether to listify or categorize "Ayatollah"s and this is clearly not a forum to discuss who should this list include. I am saying that no such list should exist on Wikipedia because Ayatollah is a title, not a position, and there is no clear criteria to address someone with that title. That violates WP:CLNT, which states lists should have a coherent and clear criteria for inclusion. It's just like having a List of Monsignors. There is no such system like a Church to grant people with the title Ayatollah (so that we would have something like List of Catholic saints). The problem is that an average English speaker thinks an Ayatollah is someone with a specific religious position like a Bishop. But academic sources do not use the word Ayatollah in the sense that Western media tend to use. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should be written using scholarly sources. Moojan Momen has written about this in his various books. Pahlevun (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion for inclusion is, or should be, simple: list entries are demonstrated in reliable sources to have been granted the title Ayatollah or are widely known by the title Ayatollah. The problem of a misunderstanding of the term Ayatollah, can be easily solved by defining the term in prose in the lede. Maybe the list should be named; maybe a discussion on inclusion regarding who should be included in the list should take place, but the list serves points 1 and 2 of WP:LISTPURP well, and losing the list would be to the detriment of readers exploring the topic. schetm (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep useful article, see WP:CLNT + WP:NOTDUP --Devokewater (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the kind of list many people will expect to find on Wikipedia, particularly for those unfamiliar with Iranian names who will need to work through a list to figure out exactly who they are looking for. If the list was a magnet for promotion of individuals there would be a problem, but with most individuals bluelinked that doesn't seem to be a problem. On the point that the use of the honorific is anachronistic in some cases - this may be objectively true, but if there are reliable sources referring to premodern individuals using this title and the title is in common use, even wrongly, then it is fine for us to reflect this in a list article. Mccapra (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename List of ayatollahs. The grammar police have spoken. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfect valid navigational list, grouping like items together. Any that you do not believe should be there, you can solve by normal editing methods. Dream Focus 10:28, 15 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Savage[edit]

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

Has had one supporting role in Orange Is The New Black but little else. For OITNB, received no recognition or significant coverage. Overall, no significant coverage in secondary independent sources. Article currently has three links to Savage's own twitter and one interview from a blogger. My search prior to this nomination could not find any further sources to prove notability from reliable independent secondary sources. Therefore does not meet WP:NACTOR. Cowlibob (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Glee^anon 13:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles in notable productions to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I watched the whole OITNB series and remember her character well but I have to agree with you. Her role in that very large ensemble cast was minor, as all her other roles have been, and there is no independent significant coverage of her. I found a couple of interviews, including a single paragraph quoting her in an Advocate article profiling four same-sex married couples, but those don't help establish notability. Largoplazo (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not enough coverage to come even close to notability as per WP:NACTOR. Jeppiz (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I’ve started rewriting the article, as of now I’ve been able to add sources, mostly for her film work as a sound designer and sound editor, which were unmentioned in the article prior to this.
Additionally she’s won three ensemble SAG awards, and nominated for a fourth but another editor has disrupted them from being added to the article, there’s an RfC on the talk page to discuss the issue. Glee^anon 17:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, precisely: "she's won" an award recognizing the entirety of the (in this case large) cast, not the individual achievement of any one of them, is not accurate; and, in her case, she was a minor character. She acquires no notability of her own through these, and notability is not inherited. Largoplazo (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did go to check out the sources you've added. But I saw that there are 35 of them, and I'm not going to open them all, not knowing which of them might contribute to notability and which you added merely to verify something in the article's content. Would you mind indicating which of them you believe are qualifying sources under WP:GNG? Largoplazo (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every listed cast member gets the award, even for a large cast, they didn’t carve out exceptions. She won the award as did all the other cast members. Glee^anon 20:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the nature of the award is that, when awarded to an overall excellent ensemble cast within which one or two performers are merely mediocre, they give it only to the excellent performers and not the mediocre ones, then it is not an award recognizing the individual excellence of any one of them and cannot be construed as an indication of such. Largoplazo (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an interesting position. Could you clarify which policy or guideline prohibits listing an ensemble award in our articles? Glee^anon 21:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss what should or shouldn't be in the article, but whether or not to keep the article, where the grounds for removal is a lack of notability. (I realize the two discussions are going on concurrently, but they should be kept separate.) As above, I'm confining myself to the notability question. Largoplazo (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps winning three SAG awards, and nominated for a fourth would be a consideration of her notability? Glee^anon 04:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to improve the article. I've haven't looked through all the references. The majority of the new refs including the Variety refs seem just to show that she was a part of the sound team/editor for those films rather than proving her notability. She has shared a nomination for a MPSE award but that in itself is not a significant achievement. The SAG cast awards were shared with 37 others so again not significant. I can't see why she currently meets any of the three criteria per WP:NACTOR. Cowlibob (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still finding sources, I think she meets BASIC, and her notability is 75% sound editor/25% actor as of yet. If she died today her obituary would be the tipping point. Glee^anon 20:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Article overhauled, everything referenced. I’m still looking for more. Glee^anon 10:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG/BASIC. The spirit of verifiability is of course to ensure everything is true/no fraud, that has undoubtedly been met. Notability is a bit borderline until one looks at the breadth of her work as both an actor and sound editor on close to a hundred films, most of them notable. If it is borderline then I suggest we WP:IAR unless we agree on what this article’s tipping point is; it’s already an acceptable start, and our readers will come away with a good understanding of who she is. Glee^anon 10:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by Johnpacklambert & Largoplazo a google search doesn’t show sufficient in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a standalone article at the moment. Celestina007 (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High quality page. Excellent job with the improvements. Right cite (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:NACTOR#1 with multiple and significant roles in major productions. Her role in Orange is the New Black alone gives her the notoriety needed. Lightburst (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empowerment Experiment[edit]

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

Fails WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NEVENTS, and WP:NORG. This is not an academic study, but rather an event organized by a single couple. They ran a website from 2009-2010, another website was kept online until 2013. Some news coverage can be found here. The couple founded an associated nonprofit which achieved 501(c)3 status in 2011. EIN: 26-4261331. Daask (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:53, 8 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Savas Mounjid[edit]

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

I was almost duped into believing this was a notable author until I dug into the sources, specifically Los Angeles Tribune which changed ownership in the last decade to a less than reputable PR firm. See this for an example of how they engage in pay for publications. I can find no evidence that this guy is notable, despite the claims here, which are only supported by self published sources. And should there be any doubt about the sole "independent source" being unreliable, the paper didn't even exist again until May of this year when it was revived by said PR firm. It is no longer the same paper nor with the same editorial standards. Praxidicae (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer and an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. The Yahoo link, which I'm sure was a PR wire article, is now a dead link as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:33, 8 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 Asianet Star Communications#Channels. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asianet Movies[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG, fails WP:NTELEVISION, "Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide" and "A television or radio station's article should not contain a comprehensive listing of the station's entire broadcast schedule" If the station article shouldn't have this information, a stand alone list is not appropriate and neither is a merge. // Timothy :: talk 11:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asianet Star Communications#Channels per WP:CHEAP; otherwise just another movie channel (with sports, for some reason). Nate • (chatter) 13:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asianet Star Communications#Channels - makes most sense. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP Spudlace (talk) 03:40, 15 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 Asianet Star Communications#Channels. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asianet Plus[edit]

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

Listcruft, fails WP:NTELEVISION, "Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide" and "A television or radio station's article should not contain a comprehensive listing of the station's entire broadcast schedule" If the station article shouldn't have this information, a stand alone list is not appropriate and neither is a merge. // Timothy :: talk 11:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The channels mainly airs reruns of popular shows from Asianet. Doesn't require a separate article as per WP:NTV. Sunshine1191 (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asianet Star Communications#Channels per WP:CHEAP and a plausible redirect. Nate • (chatter) 13:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much just agree with Mrschimpf - Redirect. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:26, 8 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) 14:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Sheffield United W.F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and also WP:GNG; lack of coverage from reliable secondary sources about Sheffield United's season. Most of the COVID coverage is about the league as a whole and not focused on any one team. A lot of the sources to date are from primary sources and/or are just routine transfer news. Spiderone 11:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 11:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately, after a lot of sleuthing, this season didn't appear to be significantly covered in secondary sources as a whole - you should expect to find reliable sources giving match reports, but I cannot find them for the several random games I looked for, just primary websites. Other teams in the league may have notable seasons, however. SportingFlyer T·C 21:12, 13 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. A redirect can be created if desired. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Zee Anmol[edit]

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

Another completely unwarranted list that fails WP:SPLIT and WP:SAL . The channel Zee Anmol's article itself has been redirected to Zee TV as the it airs only reruns of popular shows from the parent channel. Another redirect is completely unnecessary in my opinion as the article does not contain anything notable and is only linked to the channel's article (which itself does not exactly exist). Tagged for a major lack of sources since April 2019. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Listcruft, fails WP:NTELEVISION, "Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide" and "A television or radio station's article should not contain a comprehensive listing of the station's entire broadcast schedule" If the station article shouldn't have this information, a stand alone list is not appropriate and neither is a merge. // Timothy :: talk 11:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A broadcast schedule is very different to a list of notable programmes of which there are many for notable stations,but this list is unnecessary as the station is not notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The channel airs only reruns of popular shows from Zee Network channels. Doesn't require a complete list dedicated to it. Fails SAL. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All-repeat channel doesn't need a programming list-of. Nate • (chatter) 13:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge or redirect. Orientls (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what others are saying, I'm gonna say Redirect to Zee TV. I mean, it is technically about shows that aired on there. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need articles that list what content is being redistributed by whom. Raymie (t • c) 23:30, 8 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Avidan & Super Guitar Bros[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and does not reference any reliable and independent sources. Deoxy99 (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Deoxy99 (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Deoxy99 (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the WP:GNG. All sources currently in the article are first party, from the groups website or social media. A Google search didn’t bring up anything better. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. This is probably really, really important to followers of their YouTube channels, but it doesn't seem to have been noticed by anyone outside of that. Richard3120 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dan Avidan: Barely found anything about the album. WP:XY doesn't apply here since the co-artist of the album doesn't have its own page. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or if required by policy it could be redirected to Dan Avidan). Of no interest to anyone but a few fans and received no independent coverage. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 00:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, fails WP:NALBUM Spudlace (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blaq Diamond[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This band fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG woefully. It's obvious from Google search. Created by User:Steve Mafohla with very little edits. User:Robvanvee earlier tagged it for speedy which is proper. Wondering why User:Þjarkur declined the speedy and even went ahead to add two sources that fail WP:RS. One source seems to be an interview. This is worrisome. Estarosmārṭ (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winning the South African Music Awards (which came after the last AfD) is a claim of significance, making this not qualify for speedy deletion. Are there indicators that OkayAfrica and News24 are not WP:RS? – Thjarkur (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted severally in the past even for WP:COI and previous AFD. Both sources are not good enough for WP:RS. One is an interview. The topic needs more news-related sources. The scorecard on Googlenews is quite abysmal. Wondering why you're defending this why we vote "delete" on many other better-written pages with good number of sources. Estarosmārṭ (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete with possible refund - This one is tough. I voted to delete this group's article in the first AfD about 4.5 months ago. Since then they really have won the South African Music Award for Record of the Year, which is visible in several media sources about the awards ceremony (e.g. [20], [21]). That is a viable claim of notability. However they have practically no other media coverage outside of that award, and are only found in the same press releases and manager-planted stories as before. Perhaps with a big award win they will generate some notability going forward but it has not happened yet. If it happens, my precise recommendation for the "soft delete" procedure would allow the article to be re-created easily. ☆☆☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) with receiving a major music award as confirmed by reliable sources. The coverage is basic but the award negates that in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They've won an award which passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:NMUSIC. Pamzeis (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t they technically pass GNG if they win a non-trivial award? I believe so. Because of that, Keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update (voted above): To avoid pointless re-listings for the next several weeks, I have no problem with keeping the article because the voters after me have made convincing points. ☆☆☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 16 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. I think we've run out of time on this one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha (streaming service)[edit]

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

Promotion of a website. Lack of independent reliable references. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep: It's opening has received coverage from reliable sources Deccan Chronicle, NewsMinute etc. and has non-trivial article published later such as The Hans India. So its borderline GNG pass. --Ab207 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but get better refs such as those in Ab207's comment. WestCD (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WestCD: Hi. Kindly see WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES :) —usernamekiran (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the subject doesnt have significant coverage. The sources I could find, and provided above by Ab207 are press release/WP:ROUTINE coverage, they dont establish notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are other non-trivial sources which covered the subject after its launch. News18,^[1] Asianet,^[2] NTV Telugu,^[3] and The Hans India^[4] presented above. --Ab207 (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "ఆ విషయంలో అల్లు అరవింద్ ఫెయిల్ అయ్యాడా." News18 Telugu (in Telugu). 24 March 2020. Retrieved 22 September 2020.
^ Prakash, Surya. "అరవింద్ 'ఆహా ఓటీటీ'కు అదే పెద్ద దెబ్బ". Asianet News Telugu (in Telugu). Retrieved 22 September 2020.
^ "Allu Aravind's 'Aha' to present these films/Originals in August". NTV Telugu. 4 August 2020. Retrieved 22 September 2020.
^ Prakash, B. V. S. (15 May 2020). "Aha hires seasoned directors as consultants to dish out hit content". The Hans India. Retrieved 22 September 2020.

These sources are again routine/press releases. There is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: allow time for better references to emerge. This may be another TOOSOON article, yet, it is unfolding and they are throwing money around to capture an audience. In India, of all places. We will see more and more of these services emerge. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL advices us to avoid exact same arguments. The same logic can be applied to every non notable subject: "allow time for better references to emerge". If it is not notable now, then it is not notable now. If it becomes notable in future, we can create an article then. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This lack multiple in-depth reliable sources about it and I don't think it's simply a case of WP:TOSOON since the service has been around since January. So, if there was going to be any in-depth coverage it would have already happened. Even if there might be some eventually though, the answer isn't to keep the article until it materializes, but to delete it now and recreate it if (or when) the sourcing is good enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both News18 and Asianet News provide a commentary on how Aha is struggling to compete with other OTT platforms. These are not certainly routine/press releases. --Ab207 (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relisting I came here to close this since it's been relisted multiple times, but I think one more week might be helpful. It would help determine consensus if new comments address whether the sources provided are WP:ROUTINE or not. — Wug·a·po·des 23:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not have sources showing notability. BEFORE showed nothing that would show notability. Sources are routine, run of the mill, mentions, promos, etc. There has been ample time for SIGCOV to be found, but nothing. It might be TOOSOON, but it might never be and WP is not CRYSTAL. // Timothy :: talk 19:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please close this AfD soon, even if it has to be No Consensus? It has been going on for over a month now. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
addendum to my previous delete comment: like user:Adamant1 has pointed above, the service has been around since January. It should have generated WP:SUSTAINED coverage by now. For companies to establish notability, they need to have sustained coverage. The subject here fails that. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The service was launched in February, and articles are dated March, May and August, hence there is sustained coverage. The two sources mentioned above provide critical commentary about its performance, and the Hans India article by named author explores its future plans. These are not routine/press releases. The service is frequently in news as it produces original content was well. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not really sure what the difference is, I probably should have been clearly that it was "soft launched" in January. I don't think the distinction matters though. Plenty of software products and streaming services have better media coverage when they are in beta (or even just the planning phase) then this has had in almost a year. That said, even if the fact that it "launch" on March 25 was the important thing here, I wouldn't consider an article printed at the same time as a sign of sustained coverage and I still don't think this meets that standard even with the articles that were printed in May and August. Since it can't just be any coverage and should be a little more sustained then two articles over six months. For instance, if there was an article about something printed the day it came out and then the only other coverage was a single article ten years later, I don't think would it count as "sustained coverage" even though time has passed. Although, it seems like everyone interprets the guideline differently and that's fine. Also, WP:SUSTAINED says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." As far as the Hans India article goes, it also says "future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION." I think speculation about future events {or "plans") such as those made in the Hans India article are exactly what it is talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already disregarded a series of articles published around it's launch ceremony (dated 11 February), which might be "Brief bursts of news coverage." Extending that period to exclude the articles published in the following month is a bit excessive in my view. The Hans India article, despite speaking about future events, is a GNG source, keeping in mind that there isn't anything in the article which constitutes PROMO. These three sources are sufficient for the subject to establish it's notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to recap and so we are clear on things, which three sources are you talking about and what are their publication dates? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. News18 and Asianet (both published in March), and Hans India (published in May). There's another source of NTV Telugu from August, but now it seems to be redirecting to their main page. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:13, 16 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. I think the balance from the analysis is against the sources but it was late in the discussion contributions post this are just not convincingly swayed by this for me to feel comfortable deleting or that this was the winning argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

24 Mani Neram[edit]

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

Non notable film, with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search except film database sites, video clips, and interviews with the director that mention the film. Tagged for over a year for notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet GNG or NFILM. Sources in the article do not provide SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth and BEFORE showed only results such as the nominator indicated. // Timothy :: talk 03:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timothy, does not satisfy wp:nfilm or wp:sigcov --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 19:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Added sources from a number of notable national newspapers - and there are dozens more online. Please bear in mind that this is a 1983 Tamil film - not sure what kind of in-depth coverage one can expect to find online. I can assure you that this is a notable film in Tamil cinema history. Keen to hear thoughts of those potentially well-versed with the subject matter: TamilMirchi, Srivin, Kailash29792, Terminator92 Neutral Fan (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources have been added in compliance with WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The addition of sources and the success of the film make it notable.TamilMirchi (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sources. --Ab207 (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been expanded with the addition of multiple reliable sources that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per some great WP:HEY teamwork by TamilMirchi, Kailash29792, and Neutral Fan. Meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Having had another look at the sources, I'm not convinced about their reliability. [22] looks promising, especially the bit stating that it ran for around 27 weeks. But, as TB notes below, a fair number of these sources look like blogs. Not knowing Tamil, I can't look for additional sources, so I am admittedly judging these "books" by their "covers". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question and Comment: Since there were so many Keep votes I went back through the sources so see if I was wrong. I found nothing that comes close to meeting GNG or NFILM. Here is my run down on the sources:

Bhaskar, Prashant. "Tribute to Manivannan". Behindwoods.

This article is about Manivannan, it mentions the film, but does not provide barely any information about the film, let alone directly or in-depth.

மறக்க முடியுமா? - மவுன ராகம்". Dinamalar.

This article is about a different film, Mauna Ragam released in 1986. It does not mention the subject at all.

"Happy Birthday, Mohan: 'Payanangal Mudivathillai' to 'Mouna Ragam', six films of the lovable star that had a Silver Jubilee in theaters". The Times of India.

This is a birthday tribute to an actor from the film. I mentions the film in one paragraph, but gives no details, let alone addressing the subject directly and in depth.

Sunil, K. P. (29 November 1987). "The Anti-Hero". The Illustrated Weekly of India. Vol. 108. The Times Group. pp. 40–41.

Interview which mentions the film, but doesn't provide any details about the film, directly and in depth.

"மொட்டைத் தலையுடன் சத்யராஜ் நடித்த நூறாவது நாள்". maalaimalar.com

An article about an actor, it mentions the film in a single sentence, but provides no information directly or in depth.

"24 Mani Neram Tamil FIlm EP Vinyl Record by Ilayaraja". Mossymart.

This is an advertisement for a record. Nothing about the movie.

"Villains with heroic pasts". The Hindu.

An article about Heroes who turned villains. It mentions the film when it says, "Sathyaraj essayed some powerful antagonistic roles in 24 Mani Neram, Vikram, and Kakki Sattai." This is all. Nothing that meet SIGCOV, directly and in depth.

Balasubramaniam, Balaji. "Nooraavadhu Naal". BBthots.

This is a blog article and it's about another movie. It mentions the subject in a list when it says " villain of note with movies like 24 Mani Neram and Kaakki Sattai before..."...but there is no SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly or in-depth.

"ஒரே வருடத்தில் மோகன் 15 படங்கள்; ஒரேநாளில் 3 படம் ரிலீஸ்; அத்தனையும் ஹிட்". Hindu Tamil Thisai

Article about an actor. It mentions the film in a list, but that's all.

I ask the keep votes, Neutral Fan, Kailash29792, TamilMirchi, Ab207, Atlantic306, AleatoryPonderings, what am I missing? Which of the above sources show SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in depth to meet NFILM or GNG? Show me and I will gladly change my vote to keep. // Timothy :: talk 03:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the 'added sources' won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further discussion of TimothyBlue's source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It's pretty clear that this lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources about it per the good analysis of the them by TimothyBlue. That said, there is the whole "multiple passing mentions can be combined for notability" or whatever thing. Which personally I think is a bad way to do things, but it is what it is. Hence why I'm voting weak delete. Delete because it lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources, weakly though because it has a lot of passing mentions that someone could make a notability guideline based argument due to if they were so inclined. Although, I'm not that person. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keepthe addition of multiple reliable sources has proved notability. Wm335td (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, none of the sources provided have WP:SIGCOV, although it's a film from the 80s so it is possible that better sources are available. Would need at least a proper review of the film from a source, imv before it could be considered notable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:56, 16 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, as improved. There are unquestionably independently notable works of art, and there is consensus that this one meets the criteria to fall within that category. BD2412 T 04:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bust of Hadrian[edit]

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

The British Museum has 13 million items in its collection, including thousands of busts and statues, what makes this notable? Like all Roman emperors, his likeness has been sculpted countless times e.g.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29] – why is this portrait in particular notable? Notability is not established with multiple substantive independent sources, and we are not a catalogue of anything displayed in a major museum. Reywas92^Talk 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of those other statues have Wikipedia pages, and if they all did that would also be irrelevant. This one is sourced, it's in the British Museum, it was previously owned and displayed by a pope, and if Wikipedia changes criteria to say "If a subject of a sculpture or painting has too many real-world examples then none of them should have an article" I'm going to miss all of the countless statues (34) of Abe Lincoln. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Being in the British Musuem is irrelavant, since we are not about to declare its full 13,000 contents all notable by virtue of being there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The exhibition history now listed on the page gives it the prominence asked for, along with further sources listed on the British Museum webpage for the bust: Wegner (1956), pp. 15, 69, 101; Fittschen & Zanker (1983), pp. 50-51; Wegner (1984), p. 123; Evers (1994), no. 60. Cook 2013, nr. 296. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Sourced" is not and never has been the criteria for an article! WP:GNG requires "significant coverage", which the data by the exhibitor is not; it requires "independent" sources, which data by the exhibitor is not; and it requires a plural "sources", which a single source is not. The Vatican Museums likewise have tens of thousands of artworks, it's risible that any of the innumerable works owned by a pope is automatically notable. Entire exhibitions with hundreds of items likewise regularly go on tour, and being shown in multiple places does not make each one of them notable. Go away with your WP:OSE, if every one of the scores of Hadrian statues had multiple in-depth indepent sources like most of these Lincoln statues do then there wouldn't be a problem here. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a source for the notability of the object. It is from the British Museum page on its two-and-a-half year Treasures of the World's Cultures exhibition where this bust was chosen as one of the museums few treasured objects representing the Roman Empire. The museum, with its countless Roman holdings (probably countable, although a lot) deliberately chose this bust as a major artistic object which could adequately define ancient Roman art to the Asian nations visited by the exhibition. This exhibition of world cultural "Treasures" was divided into 13 sections, Roman art being one of them. That this artwork fit the criteria of such inclusion should, at a minimum, provide enough reason for Wikipedia to keep and expand this page. Statements countering the "other stuff exists" essay seem fine to use in discussions, reflected in the nomination mentioning that many other statues of Hadrian exist. Yet it just so happens that this one is identified as a world cultural treasure by the British Museum, and as such has rightly received, and should maintain, a Wikipedia page. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This remains absurd. This exhibition of 271 "major artistic objects" includes "Biface", "Pair of Mosque lamps", and "Hammered gold pectorals". This exhibition is one of many such BM tours of deliberately chosen definitional artifacts. Absent further independent coverage, there is no automatic notability for such individual objects. Reywas92^Talk 03:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The biface, Mosque lamps, and hammered pectorals are representative. The Roman sculpture of Hadrian, being discussed here, is a specific work of art. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That there are many similar objects is no argument for deletion at all. This has passed through three important collections, and the BM treats it as a "highlight" item. There will be masses of coverage in RS; most of it not online. The BM entry lists several publications, not all internal. Please don't use Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts - that project is all but defunct - use the visual arts one instead. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pray tell, where in our guidelines does it say "any individual artwork in an important collection is automatically notable"? The publications listed include a "Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum", "A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, Vol. III", and "A Guide to the Graeco-Roman Sculptures in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 2 vols." There is no indication that this is such significant coverage that every object in the Museum should have its own article because it has been catalogued in several volumes. Reywas92^Talk 22:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - Who has claimed that "any individual artwork in an important collection is automatically notable"??? You've made up this paper tiger. You're missing the important biblio references: "Wegner (1956), pp. 15, 69, 101; Fittschen & Zanker (1983), pp. 50-51; Wegner (1984), p. 123; Evers (1994), no. 60. Cook 2013, nr. 296. For example, Fittschen & Zanker (1983) is this, where this piece is discussed over 2 pages. Wegner (1956), where it is mentioned on three pages, is this. This is an important object, regarded by the BM as a highlight - it wouldn't have been taken all over the world if not. Your nom is based on a fundamental misconception. The very link you give from "his likeness has been sculpted countless times" actually says there are "150 surviving portraits of Hadrian…", so it seems it is rather easy to count them, and there is a huge literature doing just that, describing, comparing and analysing them. In fact only this and one other depiction have articles. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, mentioned! Can you read the Fittschen & Zanker book? As a catalogue it lists the thousands of objects of the entire collection without necessarily specifying notability of this item specifically, whose listing may just start at the end of one page and end at the start of the next. Your argument is that every single one of these 150 portraits would have their own articles, because Wegner mentions and catalogues all of them, with a one paragraph description and a listing in the index. You have the fundamental misconception that if a piece is catalogued in a book that compares hundreds of pieces it needs its own article. This book may cover a Depictions of Hadrian article! But no clear reason that this one in particular, out of the thousands of items selected as components of many touring exhibitions put on by many museums, is independently notable. Every museum has plenty of "highlights" but that does not bestow notability on them all. Reywas92^Talk 07:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you can't read it either, and have no idea how much coverage it gives it! Wegner is not a catalogue. More paper tigers - please stop attributing false arguments to me - what you call "Your argument" is something I've never said, & don't think. After 20 years of WP only two portraits of Hadrian have articles - you seem to be exhibiting paranoia about a flood that will never happen. Try to deal with the arguments people are actually making, rather than the ones you would like them to make so you can knock them down. Actually selection by the BM as a highlight is a pretty strong indication of notabilty - quite a number of the objects in that Chinese hits of the hits site have articles. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't seem to have access to it either, but from a review of Fittschen & Zanker: "The catalogue entries are state-of-the-art studies in imperial portrait typology. Even a meagre or battered Capitoline specimen elicits a full discussion and list of copies of its type. The entries are detailed, allusive, and often complex. They are primarily for the specialist who will require a formidable library to use and evaluate them fully. The authors are primarily concerned with getting the facts right—identification, typology, chronology—rather than interpretation. However, many entries contain much of wider interest: in particular, the entries on major or well-known pieces are recommended to all those interested in the visual presentation of imperial ideology—whether that of an individual emperor or of Roman emperors in general." doi 10.2307/300396 Vexations (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete. The sources in the article are unimpressive as they come from the museum and an exhibition. Find me academic articles or books discussing the bust and I will change my vote. Currently, it's just one artwork among many others in the BM, and it isn't enough deserve an article. T8612 (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several scholarly sources are given above, but they are shock, horror, not available online (and often in German too). Johnbod (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep though probably Rename to Townley Hadrian or Bust of Hadrian, British Museum. Contrary to the claim of countless portraits of all Roman emperors, there are around 150 of Hadrian in existence, and this is almost as plentiful as it gets. Only Augustus has more surviving statue images. The Townley marbles are no less significant than those in the Elgin or Farnese collections. Each of the major works deserves an article of its own. A two-millennia-old artwork and royal likeness should too, especially one which has passed through two significant art collections, and was a founding object in the original collection of a third collection, namely the British Museum. I've much expanded the article now. GPinkerton (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATD "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Per WP:HEY and the good offices of editors like Johnbod and GPinkerton, the wisdom of this policy is now evident. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to User:GPinkerton's expansion. Curious to see if they'll move to Townley Hadrian. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HEY. Was notable before too imo, but definitely more so since the article's expansion. TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:51, 15 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. Consensus is that, given the age and relative ease of finding sources, that the article can probably be improved further. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R B Ferguson Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Founded in 1899 and is one of the oldest football clubs in India and the oldest one in Kerala as per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be unfair to delete this article on a whim that in fact the age of the club would mean there must be more off-line sources than online. The sources in the article are weak, but that doesn't suggest that the club is not notable. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting might be unfair: It is the oldest club in Kerala. That makes it notable, even though lack sources online. I have read a lot about this club on newspapers. There was a seperate article about the club on its 100th anniversary. In one of my exams, I even recieved a MCQ question about this club. Sources might not be available online but dont know how to fix that problem. Atleast move to draftspace so that interested users can work on it Indianfootball98 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I would normally have closed this as redirect given our policy on alternatives to deletion. However, there is a compelling reason which gained consensus why to delete instead of redirect in this instance. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sack Trick[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit Adding band's albums per discussion further down this page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the band had some notable members, I question the notability of the band in general based on sourcing. The article is solely sourced to the official website and the band's Myspace blog, none of these are reliable or secondary sources. The article has a multiple issues tag on it. Google search brought the usual junk sites like databases, streaming service entries, retail sites, WP mirrors, blogs, blank Allmusic page, press releases, concert announcements... I also looked up their albums and the results are the same - streaming service entries, databases, blogs, retail sites, trivial mentions and stuff where the words are separated. I did not found any reliable source whatsoever. Even though all of their albums have articles, none of them contain any sources. The "Penguins" album seems to have gotten several great reviews from reputable magazines like Metal Hammer, Kerrang and Rock Sound (based on the article), but the reviews themselves are not cited, just quotes from them, which reads rather promotional. (If anybody has said reviews, please post it here and then I insert them in the article - I did not found them and I can't track them down because I'm not keen on that). So in conclusion, I think Sack Trick is not a notable band - the title can stay as a redirect to any of the members' pages but is not notable for its own article. Article creator's only edit was this before he disappeared into thin air. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect to band member Chris Dale. Is there a reason why their albums are not being listed for deletion? If there isn't, then the albums should be merged into the band article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If Chris Dale's article is kept, the album articles can be redirected to him or his band. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: I think if the article gets deleted, the albums go with it, if the title stays as a redirect, they will get deleted as well - if I remember correctly. But yeah, they aren't notable either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Not necessarily, I think they must all be nominated individually, and be open to discussion for at least one week. Case in point, Angela Via. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay then, I nominate all of their albums to deletion as well without a separate AfD:
(Music From) The Mystery Rabbits
Penguins on the Moon
Sheep in Kiss Make Up

They are equally not notable. Btw,@Jax 0677:, Chris Dale is up to deletion as well. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The AFD tag needs to be at the top of the album articles, or the AFD for those albums is not valid. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done: and I vote Delete all: insufficient coverage to pass WP:NBAND or WP:NALBUM. I've nominated Chris Dale's page for deletion, but if the outcome of that discussion is "keep" then it would make sense to redirect Sack Trick to his page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that the three album articles need to be listed at the very top of this AFD as well, and the AFD should not be closed until one week after this happens, unless WP:SNOW is invoked. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair enough: I've added them below the main nomination. Note to closing admin: can we allow this discussion to run for seven days from this comment? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seems to be a bit of a mess, three articles added to the discussion belatedly, would benefit from an additional seven days of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [comment] || 04:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Dale was just closed as "No Consensus". To be clear, I recommend either improving the three album articles, redirecting them to Sack Trick if that article remains, or redirecting them to Chris Dale if the "Sack Trick" article gets redirected to Chris Dale. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that no consensus close with such a poorly unsourced article seems to be a failure of the AfD process. I wonder why more people didn't comment. It was relisted twice. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Dale until that article is deleted. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Next time, please redirect unsourced album articles to the band—that doesn't warrant discussion. I've boldly redirect Chris Dale per its AfD and complete lack of secondary source coverage. The band itself, Sack Trick, had no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) per a search in my custom Google search engine of music sources. Courtesy pings for @Jax 0677 and Timtempleton, in case you want to reconsider your position. czar 17:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I reverted the redirect for Chris Dale per WP:BRD, as this article was recently kept per the "No Consensus" AFD that recently transpired. I see no harm in listing the three albums at AFD along with Sack Trick. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and Czar. A curiosity at best. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete as obvious consensus. I thought a n extra week wou ld resolve this once it was known late in the discussion that Chris Dale closed NC and it has. I'm not closing as there was a complaint about the relist and closing would just pour petrol on the flames. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 16 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 07:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Sada[edit]

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

I am nominating the Georges Sada BLP article for AfD. I've cleaned up the article extensively, including adding sources were verifiability is possible, removing unreliable sources that are simply the article subject, Sada, speaking about himself in interviews or articles recapping an interview or meeting with him or straight-forwardly Failed verification, and other things violating WP:BLP, WP:QS and other verifiability issues, WP:RSPRIMARY, WP:IS, WP:BLPRS, WP:REDFLAG, WP:BIO (notability), and other policies that would mandate a deletion or major overhaul. This and other issues have been explained and discussed on the article's Talk page. However, the article still includes some unverifiable/unsourced information, and info in references, that does not meet WP:BLP, WP:RS/WP:RS, and also fails the notability test. What would remain after trimming the article down to what can only be that are only 3 "reliable" information points about him on the article:

1) He was for some unspecified duration a spokesperson for interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, and even that required searching newspaper archives and web archives to find a few sources that off-hand mentioned this. I realize this does not fit the notability (bio) criteria: "Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention." in the sense it is a "mere trivial mention", but for the sake of discussion I'm pointing it out. His position as a spokesperson was by no means famous, significant, or notable, and required research by multiple editors to find trivial mentions of it.

2) He won the Coventry Cathedral's prize for international peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately, the article includes a couple of his controversial, unverifiable claims discussed in the Talk page. In addition, the award itself is not famous or well-known. For example, it's nothing like a Pulitzer Prize, Oscar, or Nobel Prize. Sada is not a known figure for this. It is at best a side detail and not notable or significant, and doesn't full WP:BIO additional criteria. The source itself is from local Coventry News, not widespread across national (in the UK where Coventry is) and international news.

3) This third point is arguably the only reason the subject is known to any extent and included in the original edits of the article: a claim, which more or less amounts to conspiracy theory, that before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi government not only still had WMDs but had moved it all to Syria. This is already covered in WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Syria. Even so, Sada was not substantial or influential in this. He just put forward a theory on which nothing could be verified and no action was taken. Col. Frank Wismer in his memoir "War in the Garden of Eden: A Military Chaplain's Memoir from Baghdad" relates on his meetings with Georges Sada, and how he spoke to a US government intel oversight panel official who told him the information was unreliable and inaccurate, and Wismer also doubted Sada's authenticity. In fact, to even learn about Sada or his theory, it may require digging into Iraq WMD conjecture and conspiracy theories. And in fact, the article was created in the same month that Sada's book regarding the WMD claims was released, January 2006 (https://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-Hardcover-Author-Georges/dp/B00EOHHVZW/).

A note on notability: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." WP:BIO

Unfortunately, at its worst before the improvement and clean-up, the article contained mostly unsourced information, and that which was sourced came from troublesome unreliable and primary info from the subject, Georges Sada, written into some article describing said talk/interview as previous described. This has been a problem discussed since 2006 when the article was created, including by the article's original creator, User:Sherurcij, who had questioned the authenticity of the subject and lack of reliable, independent sources. Even with the immense clean-up and improvement, the subject still is not notable, or at best, is notable for one thing: his particular Iraq WMD (conspiracy) theory. Even this one thing, it is already covered in WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Syria. In essence, the article relied on Sada himself, a primary source, giving a talk to interview to a questionable source that inserts no analysis or fact-checking for even his most bizarre claims (e.g. Iraq bought fully assembled nuclear bombs from China, but the invasion prevented their delivery) but rather states them as fact and of course obviously not independent of the subject. Other sources that did was not specifically a recap or transcript an interview/meeting with Sada were not intellectually independent of each other.

Following improvements, the article subject is still not notable as discussed. In the three things that can be semi-reliably confirmed about Sada, they aren't notable or requiring an article, and lacking in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic AND provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention, except regarding the fact of the WMD theory claim he made. He did not become a well-known or significant figure as a result of his WMD claims or his book, so it's difficult to make the case he's even notable. The WMD claim is not an event itself, nevermind a significant one. To be notable for this, Sada would have to have been significant in some verifiable event. However, his WMD claim was inconsequential as nothing came of it and he started making it after the invasion and was deemed unreliable/inaccurate. His claim was not actually part of any event, except appearing on Fox News to promote his book, which is not significant or notable. Considering his WMD claim is already touched upon in a more relevant Wikipedia article, the Georges Sada article is already redundant, and so a merging or moving is not needed.

Overall, in its current cleaned-up state, Georges Sada still suffers with regards to WP:PSEUDO, for example "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization?" The answer to the second part of the question is Yes.

This does not meet the requirements WP:MILPERSON which requires "have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." This is not met, and the claim of Sada being a general (and other things like #2 in the Iraqi Air Force) is a verbal claim from himself directly. There are no independent, reliable sourcing/verification otherwise. A couple sources in which he isn't directly involved may make a trivial mention but is still not fully independent of him (e.g. him receiving a small award). This also fails WP:BIO since it is a trivial mention. Sources calling him a "General", as a trivial mention, especially and specifically in the context of his own claim of himself in his book Saddam's Secrets do not fulfill the policy either. This is also a case of WP:REDFLAG violation since the source of this important and surprising claim is primary sourcing or second-hand "What Sada said" in nature. There is not high-quality, verifiable, independent secondary sourcing on this, nevermind not being substantial in quantity. Also consider this from WP:MILPERSON policy: "Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article".

It doesn't fit the bill for WP:BASIC either. Even if we could make the argument that Sada is notable for his WMD claim and that somehow it was significant in some way, like Gavrilo Princip's assassination of Franz Ferdinand, WP:BIO1E still applies here. WP:FAILN "Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted." is applicable here and in this case, the pertinent content is already merged. There isn't significant coverage of Sada either, and what does exist is overwhelmingly regarding talks, transcript, interview recaps, and meetings of him. Overall there isn't much if anything to warrant a standalone page and does not do well in satisfying WP:BIO. My recommendation is to DELETE.

Edit: Note for admins: The article does not satisfy WP:MILPERSON. The votes below on that basis are based on a misunderstanding of what WP:MILPERSON and WP:BIO require. Trivial mentions fail WP:BIO. More importantly, something the subject claimed about himself in some sources or is described based off what he said in other sources (such as in the context of his book, in which he describes himself as a general), also fails WP:MILPERSON, which states "have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" and "Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable. Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article" Referencing Sada's own book and calling him a general on that basis does not fill this requirement. It's still unreliable, unverifiable primary sourcing at that point. Even if notability could be argued for one event, by WP:BIO1E the information belongs in another article, which it already does. WP:REDFLAG is also relevant here. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, flag officer (General) in Iraqi army. His memoirs and interviews have also had an impact. Deletion is not cleanup.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MILPERSON as a flag officer. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eostrix User:Coolabahapple Just an FYI, there isn't independent, reliable sourcing that he was a flag officer. The claim comes from him. How did his interviews have an impact by the way, especially considering nothing came of it and he's been described as unreliable and inaccurate and lacking credibility? By the way this actually fails WP:MILPERSON because "have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." is not met. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to search Saddam era Arabic sources, but sources in English: Times of Israel, Tate Publishing Ltd book, Morgan James Publishing book (2nd in command of air force), and Publisher's Weekly all call him a general and are independent.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eostrix Perhaps you didn't read through the opening post or the Talk page, but this is one of the precise serious issues brought up since 2006. Furthermore, your first source only mentions Sada's conspiracy theory and only in passing mentions him as a "general", which as has been discussed to death is a claim that originates with himself. The other sources calling him a "General" purely on the basis of his own claim of himself as a general in his own book Saddam's Secrets or even cite it directly. It's using unreliable primary sourcing (primary because it's coming from Sada himself). Again, that trivial mention (which still fails WP:BIO) does not meet the critiera for WP:MILPERSON. This still fails WP:BIO, WP:MILPERSON, WP:REDFLAG, etc. On a deeper level, considering Sada is strictly known for a baseless conspiracy theory, how are we supposed to take his word at face value for other matters? Even if he was scrupulous, this would still fail WP:BIO / WP:MILPERSON criteria. And as already discussed, this article subject is not notable, and if the case can be made he is, is only notable for one event WP:BIO1E.

Example: "Iraqi general Georges Sada was interviewed by Jon Stewart about his political memoir Saddam's Secrets". One, this is a trivial mention. Two, this is specifically in the context of his own book where he claims being a general making it very easy to see where the claim in this source originates from, so it's still a case of primary sourcing. Three, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and our only original source is Sada himself who has a very clear conflict of interest as he uses his supposed rank (even claiming to be #2 in the Iraqi Air Force, also unverifiable) to push his WMD theory and a couple other unverifiable and contradictory stories. See WP:BIO, WP:V/WP:REDFLAG, and WP:MILPERSON for more details. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "I don't know how to search Saddam era Arabic sources,": I did this and with the help of a few others. There was nothing. Evidently Sada fell off a historical record there's no proof of him being on, other than what originates with his own word. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, rather surprisingly. I can only agree with the nominator that there are no truly independent sources showing that the subject was a senior officer, let alone a general officer, in Iraq, but merely some that repeat his own unverified claim. There is also no reliable source, rather than sources written by people associated with fringe churches that support him, that supports anything about him. I spent a few hours looking for such sources yesterday, and can only conclude that the nominator is correct. And, if you read the talk page and the history of this article, you can see that I am certainly not taking the nominator at face value. If there was significant coverage by others showing it then the subject would be notable as a liar, but I can also not find sufficient evidence to say that. Independent reliable sources have simply ignored this person, so we should do the same. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, thanks to above discussions, have struck out my "keep" due to lack of independent sources/unverifiability of claims. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Sada's book Saddam's Secrets are held in around 350 libraries but have not found enough reviews to warrant a standalone article ie. more then this PW review is required. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Doesn't meet notable biography criteria. Author in question made many unverified claims in his book citing "anonymous pilots". DesertPanther (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOLDIER is just an essay, not an SNG and the claims that he was a general are not supported and being a general is not inherently notable. He lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS and so fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 9 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 07:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justifiers[edit]

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

This, on the other hand, seems beyond hope, but User:Rtkat3 deprodded this and asked for AFD, so, here we go. PRO was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." And really, there is nothing else to add except the usual notes about this being plot-only fancruft, and the only non-primary refs is to a mention in passing that this is one of Jack Kirby's inventions. But a very minor and not impactful one, I am afraid... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, major element of DC Comics universe. IQNQ (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Indef blocked user followed a SPI[reply]
- WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is it a major element of the DC Universe? They have no multimedia appearances and only seem to appear occasionally in New Gods-related stuff. According to DC Database, they have only made 16 single-issue appearances since the 1970s. Dark knight 2149 06:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is relatively little coverage in reliable, secondary sources on the Justifiers. They are mentioned briefly in a few places in plot summaries, but that is really the extent of it. I suppose it could possibly be Redirected to Glorious Godfrey, as many of the few mentions of them in sources are in regards to being under his command, and that article already does talk about them. Rorshacma (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. They are alternate foot soldiers of Darkseid outside of the Parademons and played a part in the "Final Crisis" storyline. Plus, @IQNQ: is right about his claim. If the decision ends in merge, it should be under list of New Gods under it's Earth-based allies section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am somehow missing the keep rationale here. WP:KEEPER bad argument above? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rtkat3: If you weren't already aware, "Let the page stay, the people who want it kept are right in their claims" is a fairly weak rationale. In fact, votes like this are usually ignored by AfD closers. Dark knight 2149 05:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little reliable coverage indeed. I’m leaning delete unless convinced otherwise. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All primary sources with the exclusion of one non-primary source that I cannot access. Given that there is no real world information cited from the source, it can be assumed to be a trivial mention. This fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor group of characters. References are not enough to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to their coverage in reliable, mainstream sources that pass the GNC. --Moscowdreams (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock account[reply]
Delete, this group fails WP:GNG, with no indication of SIGCOV in any reliable sources, and the article in its current state also fails WP:PLOT since it is essentially entirely comprised of in-universe information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My comment above covers it. Dark knight 2149 06:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a primary sourced article with no secondary sources to assert WP:NOTABILITY or provide any WP:NOT#PLOT real-world context. There are no sources that can remedy this as the topic seems to have attracted little attention in reliable sources, beyond the fiction itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shooterwalker: Per WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:HANDLE, notability is determined by the sheer existence of sources, not by whatever is already in the article. An article being poorly sourced has little weight over whether it's deleted or not. If we deleted every poorly sourced article, a quarter of Wikipedia would vanish overnight (though in this case, the topic genuinely doesn't seem to have any notability). Dark knight 2149 04:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why do you keep replying to my AFD comments to tell me things I already know? When I said "there are no sources that can remedy this", I was very much talking about the "sheer existence of sources" and that this topic "genuinely doesn't seem to have any notability". Next time you disagree with me about the existence of sources, try to WP:AGF and go out and find some. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:23, 14 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 Thomas & Friends. Or elsewhere: consensus is to redirect, but the discussion isn't clear where to. Sandstein 07:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edward the Blue Engine[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. At best this can be redirected to the List of Thomas & Friends narrow-gauge engines. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate list. I've noticed that there are no good RS for this article while patrolling edits. William Avery (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we lack good reliable sources, we should not have the article. Wikipedia is not Wikia, although it virtually allowed itself to be made into such prior to 2008.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because the topic seems to fail our notability criteria. Also, even if notability is met, editorially it is better to combine this material with that on the other characters. If I remember rightly (over 60 years) Edward was the main protagonist in the first story in the first book of The Railway Series and later there was a book entitled Edward the Blue Engine so maybe notability could be demonstrated – I can't be bothered to look. Are there good reliable sources? Yes, there are plenty, both primary and secondary – books, films, television programmes, but these are in-universe and not independent so do not contribute to notability. List of Thomas & Friends narrow-gauge engines would not be a good redirect target because Edward was not characterised as narrow-gauge – List of characters in The Railway Series would be appropriate. Thincat (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to see how he is notable outside of people who properly know the show well. I'm going to say Redirect for now, but I might come back and change my mind. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above, Edward is notable only within the context of the series and so directing readers to List of characters in The Railway Series#Edward (Number 2) is most appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I see plenty of Google Scholar results for "Edward the Blue Engine". I think you're just not looking heard enough (or at all, really). - Scarpy (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHITS which generally yields 99% of mentions in passing and other bad hits is not a strong argument. Which sources are reliable and discuss this character in-depth? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of those sites are non-reliable and/or only mention him in passing. Doesn't seem like enough in my eyes. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:07, 14 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 Judge Dredd: The Mega Collection. Sandstein 07:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunting Party (Judge Dredd story)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a comic book plotline. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. What makes this story notable? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mechanismo At best, this can be redirected to Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines per the outcome of that other AfDs and several more since. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable anthology, republished as book, notable. IQNQ (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Indef blocked user followed a SPI[reply]
Delete or redirect - If there's no coverage in reliable sources, the topic does not need an article. TTN (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no sources being used in the current article, and searching for coverage turned up pretty much nothing in reliable, secondary sources. I would also be against a Redirect as suggested in the nom - in order to make sense to be redirected to the section on "Major storylines", there would need to be some evidence that this was a major storyline, which there is not. Rorshacma (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This review is pretty good, but I'm on the fence. It's self-published, but I'd say its from an expert in the field having published two books. That said it is only one source (if that), so I'm abstaining temporarily, just wanted to throw that out for consideration. It can't sustain an article alone per WP:SELFSOURCE#5, though. I'll likely recommend a redirect to Judge Dredd: The Mega Collection since it is already listed (iss.64/vol.41), and it doesn't appear "major" enough to merge to the the main "Major storylines" section. -2pou (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Judge Dredd: The Mega Collection, I concur with 2pou that Douglas Wolk is probably a subject-matter expert, but unfortunately his review alone is not enough to cause this article to pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Judge Dredd: The Mega Collection. Other than the review linked above, and a reprinting, this storyline doesn't appear to have attracted much attention. It doesn't have much effect on the Dredd continuity to be considered a "major" storyline either. the wub "?!" 12:56, 12 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. Sandstein 07:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Necropolis (Judge Dredd story)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a comic book plotline. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. What makes this story notable? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mechanismo At best, this can be redirected to Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines per the outcome of that other AfDs and several more since. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, notable work of fiction that was reprinted several times in collections. IQNQ (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Indef blocked user followed a SPI[reply]

Keep since there are some good reviews from Sci-Fi-Online (partly consisting of former writers/editors at Dreamwatch): Part 1, Part 2 as well as from SF² Concatenation. io9/Gizmodo also highlighted it as a key story for Judge Dredd. The age of the story suggests there may be some print material, but I don't think trying to find them is necessary given these. -2pou (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the longest Dredd stories, and pivotal in how it tied together other long-running storylines and had a lasting effect on the continuity. io9 called it one of the Top 11 Essential Judge Dredd Stories. The Telegraph and The Times both specifically mention Necropolis as a classic story in their obituaries of Carlos Ezquerra. the wub "?!" 13:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good sources include, by historian John Newsinger -- Cover Feature: The Dredd Phenomenon. Right cite (talk) 00:36, 15 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. Sandstein 07:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted Boy[edit]

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

No reviews as far as I can find, so it fails WP:NBOOK. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see at least three reviews on ProQuest. IDs: 2076732857 (Pink Paper); 2216024704 (Gay Scotland); 2076709605 (Gay Times). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, multiple reviews as brought out above, and an additional review by PW here. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the Publishers Weekly review and others mentioned. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sourcing identified. Glee^anon 09:40, 13 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 07:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbie Carter[edit]

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

Fails ANYBIO, NACTOR, and the GNG. No actual claim of notability. No reliable sourcing. This BLP is entirely sourced/referenced to PR copy, promotional churnalism, and thoroughly unreliable clickbait sites like Therichestcelebrity.com (which actually states "Gabbie Carter is the most outstanding model in entertainment history", a statement so absurd that any competent editor would recognize that the source was completely unusable.) Run-of-the mill porn performer with the standard collection of tinfoil awards handed out by PR businesses to their advertisers and clients, "distinguished" only, to be frank, by her underage appearance. That doesn't merit coverage in an encyclopedia. Delete and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability of Any biography at WP:BIO:

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.

The adult film industry is covered by its own media, like AVN, X-Rated Critics Organization, XBIZ and other publishers. These bodies have already nominated and awarded Carter, although she has in the industry for less than two years, and has made 120 films during this period of time.

Dan Miller wrote at AVN about Carter:

"I have been booking models for 22 years and I have never seen such a huge response to a brand new model", John Steven, Carter's agent.
"Every director who has worked with her has picked up the phone on their own and called me to say how amazing it was to work with her [...] The only time I usually get calls is to tell me that there was a problem with the shoot", Steven.
"She’s the highest rated model on my site", Kayden Kross, director.
"I definitely think she’s the new one", Laurent Sky, director.
"Gabbie was an impressively natural performer. I loved her style, work ethic and easy-going attitude", Lena Paul, actress.
"Listen, I think she is one of the next biggest stars in the porn industry", Manuel Ferrara, actor.
"She’s a new superstar on the rise here in our industry”, Mick Blue, actor.
"I was really surprised with how quickly it escalated", Gabbie Carter.

Carter stands the WP:PORN guidelines, and the article exists in seven additional Wikipedias.

AVN is not Carter's agent, does not sell her films in its website, and its images are censored. AVN is a secondary source like all the other media.

Penthouse pets have not done 120 films during less than two years.

I also did not find room for the claim "underage appearance". Carter played as an adult, and did not pretend to be a minor. Dgw (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO; WP:PORNBIO is deprecated; the sourcing is appalling, the article is essentially a massive BLP violation, and the promotional soundbytes from porn industry people posted above contribute nothing to encyclopedic notability. Spicy (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pronographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Notability claims are based on low quality sources. This is why WP:PORNBIO was deprecated in 2019 and why porn awards can't satisfy WP:ANYBIO. This actress would not even have passed PORNBIO when the SNG was in effect, since porn award nominations are given out so prolifically. As stated above, the porn accolades are standard industry fluff coming from an industry propaganda organ. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claim: "In porn, the press to industry relationship is notoriously incestuous", which has been written at Carter's talk page, is a bias against AVN. In the same breath you may claim that The New York Times is not a reliable source when it deals with Donald Trump, as it was stated in The New York Times: "During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, the Times did print the words "fuck" and "pussy," among others, when reporting on the vulgar statements made by Donald Trump in a 2005 recording" (Trump was not the president in 2005). The Hebrew Israel Hayom supports Benjamin Netanyahu, but is accepted as a secondary source, and has a template for citation. Dgw (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have not mentioned the New York Times, Donald Trump or the use of profanity, please don't put words in my mouth. That said, in general, news reporting from a mainstream source with a good reputation for fact checking is considered more reliable than even mainstream industry trade mags. In its guidance about sources, the Porn Project warns about AVN especially. Interviews and content based on what the subject says are not considered fact-checked sources that are intellectually independent of the subject. Press releases also fail the independence test. AVN is a source that should be treated with caution, and statements of excellence by AVN need independent WP:RS support for Wikipedia notability purposes. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen such warning in WP:PORN. It wrote: "AVN.com: generally reliable for adult industry news and movie reviews". Dan Miller, Editor-in-chief at AVN who has been covering the business of adult entertainment since 2001, interviewed Kayden Kross, Laurent Sky, Lena Paul, Manuel Ferrara, Mick Blue, Carter and Carter's agent, and they said their words about Carter. Nobody showed that it was fake or edited. His views on adult entertainment trends have been published by Time, CNN, The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, The Daily Beast, HuffPost, Fox News, LA Weekly, Los Angeles Daily News, Las Vegas Weekly, GQ Australia and Salon (website). Dgw (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You left out this part about AVN: "though it does not indicate when an article is a press release." Nobody is calling it fake. It can be called churnalism however. Interviews, press releases and other material sourced to the subject are self-serving in nature. They cannot support claims of notability with out independent support. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If inexperienced actress goes in the film industry, they would not say it about her. When Miller interviews them, it is his own work, not a promotion which has been sent from a film company. Carter's agent told Miller in AVN: "She also has bookings scheduled in Japan, Italy, Paris and London in the coming months" (it was before the Corona crisis). Dgw (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An interview is what the subject says about herself. No matter how famous the interviewer is, it does not establish notability. Passing on what the agent says does not contribute to notability. Even an AVN Hall of Fame citation does not make a porn star notable. It takes more than porn trade press to attest to the significance of porn achievement. Finally, we are going back and forth about a single porn press article, while notability generally relies on multiple non-trivial, independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PORN does not have any warning about Xbiz.com, and it has 49 results of Carter, with nominating Carter as the Best Female Performer for the 28th Annual NightMoves Awards (Tampa, Fl). It has also its site.

By Xbiz.com, the Top 10 performers in AEBN's straight theaters are:

1. Angela White (playing 17 years).

2. Gabbie Carter (playing less than two years).

Full deteails are here. Dgw (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A look through the 49 XBiz hits produces the usual: repackaged press releases, announcements and award rosters. The only hit for a real article was XBiz talking up her nomination for an XBiz Award. Nominations come from XBiz clients. Night Moves is a self-published source for an award that didn't cut it when PORNBIO was in effect. As for AEBN, are you serious? Being listed among the top selling porn stars of the quarter by a porn blog is ephemeral and trivial coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Interview tells everything about the person who talks. In March 2020 Netanyahu said: "I am navigating the Titanic" in an interview, and could not void his words. Carter said correct words, in spite of she was younger. Dgw (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia makes no use of this interview, how is this relevant? Notable people are interviewed. Interviews don't make them notable. For Wikipedia purposes, interviews are primary sources that are generally not fact checked in real time. They can used to attribute statements or fill in basic facts as long as they are not unduly self-serving. Netanyahu's notability is supported by citations to dozens of factual reports from reputable news agencies. Gabbie Carter's RS coverage is close to nil. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have to use a citation for showing that it was improper. The state of Israel is not a sinking vessel, and its prime minister did not have to use the "Titanic" word. Trump lashed out at social media companies after Twitter labeled tweets with fact checks, and it was written in Wikipedia. AVN interview was exact and reliable, and the industry people said the exact words about Carter. Carter is not the Titanic, but a rising star and she knows it. She charges 10 USD monthly to follow her and has 7,800 likes, which are 78,000 USD for her. She had 223 posts, with average 35 likes per post. Dgw (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have ceased to make any sense at all. Netanyahu's statement has zero relevance in Wikipedia. Twitter's flagging of a head of state's most obvious and egregious abuse of the platform does not give Twitter an even credible reputation for fact checking. WaPo notes the head of state's abusive behavior. Again, this has nothing to do with Gabbie Carter and has no bearing on the value of the AVN source. Finally, popularity and financial success are not notability, especially without the acknowledgment from independent, reliable sources. Most porn stars are popular. Reliable sources take little note of that. There is no point to continuing with this thread, absent relevant evidence of reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is Carter, not me. Phrases like "You left out this part about AVN", "are you serious?", "You have ceased to make any sense at all" may not be accepted in Wikipedia. Dgw (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out faults in low quality evidence, evidence-free arguments and way-off-topic tangents does not constitute a personal attack. It is a challenge to the arguments presented. The selective of a quotation is a fact. Citing flagged propaganda to justify the use of porn industry propaganda, flies in the face of Wikipedia standards to the point of absurdity. Trump and Netanyahu are extreme cases of whataboutism. You are straying so too far off topic for dialog to be productive. Again, please produce evidence that is relevant. Otherwise, you are wasting time. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The circular jerkage of xbiz and avn covering their own industry starlets does not meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Zaathras (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from the notability guidelines I think she has substantial background to be listed on this site. Juju (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
deletion its been a long time since assertion or making shit up and claiming its a reason to keep a substandard article has carried any weight. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing and even the basic low bar of the GNG isn't met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, only SIGCOV is in unreliable sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:38, 10 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.