< 24 September	26 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amazon rainforest#Biodiversity. (non-admin closure) Zoozaz1 talk 00:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon insects[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, no evidence that this is a notable topic separate from the Amazon rainforest itself Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Amazing; this has shambled along in its current state for 14 years. Full of sweeping statements but all of them unsourced - no, the single external link is not a usable reference; it contains none of that stuff. There's likely an article here but this isn't it (to be clear, I don't doubt the topic's notability - see our slew of "Biodiversity of..." articles). For the time being, redirect to Amazon_rainforest#Biodiversity, and if someone wants to write an actual sourced article they can do it at any time. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is a topic that could potentially be made into a worthwhile article, but in its current unsourced state it isnt worth keeping. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amazon_rainforest#Biodiversity, where insects are briefly mentioned. Amazing insect biodiversity in the Amazon rainforest has been often noted and so this is undoubtedly a notable topic and the article has WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. (Does this make me part of the keep brigade? It is best to comment on content, not editors.) But the article unsourced and I didn't find any scholarly, readily available sources with which to shore up its content. If someone else improves it per WP:HEY, I would be happy to keep the article. Until then it's best to redirect to the one sourced fact in Amazon_rainforest#Biodiversity and categorize this as an ((R with possibilities)). --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect will do. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. As pointed out above, it's entirely possible that a good article could be written on this subject, but what we have now is not worth keeping. It reads like a elementary schooler's science class assignment - except the elementary schooler would be expected to cite their sources. Spicy (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect to Amazon_rainforest#Biodiversity - As stated a couple times above already, it is certainly possible that a good article on the subject could be created. However, the current article is completely unsourced, and thus should not be retained until a time that such an article is actually created. Redirecting the name to the proper section of the main article on the Amazon rainforest for now is sufficient, and if/when an actual well-sourced article on the topic is written, it can be spun back out. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now Spudlace (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G. K. Reddy (producer)[edit]

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

Non-notable producer and actor. Some minor coverage, but insufficient to establish WP:PRODUCER and WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 23:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not well known.TamilMirchi (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TamilMirchi, I don’t get, you are voting a delete in an article you created? Per your own rationale for your delete !vote, why did you in the first place create an article for an individual who you thought is/was not well known ? Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure if he is notable.TamilMirchi (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Pretty much agree with scope_creep, subject of article doesn’t possess enough in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article at the moment. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Celestina007 I found some sources but nothing in-depth Spudlace (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable producer and actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 2 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Prim[edit]

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

I PRODDED the article because it is a clear WP:GNG fail. The one source provided is a self-published YouTube video. A Google search reveals lots of coverage on the subject, but none in reliable sources. It also does not meet WP:NFO. The creator has challenged a PROD but I am yet to see any evidence to demonstrate that this film merits inclusion. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a YouTube short film with no coverage in secondary sources Spiderone 08:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : I couldn't find anything on this from secondary sources. I could only find the video and user opinions of it. - 2pou (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also couldn't find any secondary Spudlace (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devokewater (talk) 15:53, 2 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) 22:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Balmazújvárosi FC season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS

Also nominating:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fail GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 06:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Both fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Nyíregyháza Spartacus FC season[edit]

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

Incomplete articles that do not meet the guidelines for season articles; WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fail GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 06:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 FC Ajka season[edit]

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

All comprehensively fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fail GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 06:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All fail GNG and NSEASONS. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Szolnoki MÁV FC season[edit]

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

Incomplete articles that fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS comprehensively

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 21:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All fail GNG and NSEASONS. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | [speak] || 05:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Stokes[edit]

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

I can't find a single independent, reliable source that provides significant coverage of the subject. Vexations (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm new to this and would like to better understand your concerns about sourcing that are noted in the article.

With regard to "non-primary" sources being required:

Reference 2: BCBusiness is a well-known business publication here in Canada. It's an interview with Caroline Stokes, it's not written by her. Would that not be considered non-primary?
The reference to the publisher's website (3) is noted as considered to be a primary source. It's a fact that the book is published by Entrepreneur Press. Is it required, however, that the source be something other than Entrepreneur Press?
Reference 5 is noted as "Failed verification". I cannot find a page on Wikipedia that explains this term. The source is HRexecutive.com. Can you please explain what "failed verification" means here?
References 7 through 13 are intended to provide evidence for the final sentence that Caroline Stokes is a regular media commentator and contributor, and is it not therefore to be expected that these are what Wikipedia defines as primary sources? Three of these references - from Forbes and Entrepreneur Magazine are in addition flagged as "unreliable". I am unclear why these publications are considered to be unreliable?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your comments.

Rvnix (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage is not sufficiently independent for WP:GNG. The coverage in BCBusiness for example is promoting BCBusiness's event where she appears as a speaker. Forbes is self-published. Coverage is promotional, the same as with all executive coaches here at AfD. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Failed verification" is used when an inline citation to a source is given, another editor has checked the source, the source does not support what is contained in the article, and despite the source not supporting the article, the source still contains useful information on the topic. In this case footnote 5 does not explicitly say that the subject is a certified executive coach, although it does imply that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have added some new sources in an attempt to address the concerns. I noted the changes in the article history but in summary the new references are as follows:

new reference for the founding of FORWARD
new references for the publication of the book Elephants Before Unicorns
new reference for certified executive coach
additional media articles in which the subject is quoted.

In addition, I removed the Forbes articles as sources. I did not yet remove those articles where a non-primary source was noted as being required - it wasn't clear whether primary sources are permitted alongside secondary sources.

Thank you.

Rvnix (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many primary/promotional and unreliable sources. She fails WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and WP:GNG. Pamzeis (talk) 03:50, 6 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) 22:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Budapest Honvéd FC II season[edit]

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

All articles are incomplete and fail WP:NSEASONS and comprehensively fail WP:GNG

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 21:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Eastleigh F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS due to playing two levels below the fully professional level; fails WP:GNG as the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources. I'm struggling to see how this could pass GNG. Spiderone 21:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 21:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 21:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NSEASONS. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur Soot[edit]

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

Promotional article for subject of article who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. A before search turns up nothing concrete and mostly reveals hits in user generated sources and non reliable sources such as Spotify. Fails WP:ANYBIO also and satisfies no criterion from WP:SINGER Celestina007 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find anything besides the usual junk like Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Twitch, Soundcloud, Spotify, Pinterest and many other social media pages and databases/Wikipedia mirrors, as well as casual mentions/name checks and gossip crap. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. The article also reads like it was copied from Fandom, likely because it was in fact copied from there. I have added an attribution template for now. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing about this artiste that would meet the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A do-it-yourself guy who is very good at self-promotion at the usual streaming and social sites, but this WP article is clearly an attempt to increase his clicks over there. Here we measure notability per reliable media coverage. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen some dreadful "citations" in my time but the front page of a subreddit is new on me! Agree with all of above. Wodgester (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only social media type sources not the secondary sources are needed Spudlace (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. peterl (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta L. DeBiasi[edit]

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

I challenge the notability of Roberta L. DeBiasi. The bbc article cited only contains passing mention of Roberta L. DeBiasi and the only other reference is from the website of her workplace. Further research on this individual turns up other news sources, all with passing mention. Not notable. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 20:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 20:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commment https://childrensnational.org/research-and-education/about-cri/faculty-and-leadership-directory/roberta-debiasi has a few more references under "News and stories". I've not looked what level of detail they are though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Again though, the source is from her employer. It is the website of the hospital that she works at and does not help establish notability. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 12:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know - I'm not referring to the page itself, I'm referring to the set of pages it links to. Some are Children's National articles, but to pick another one at random, for instance https://www.fox5dc.com/news/new-numbers-show-impact-coronavirus-has-on-children is Fox 5 quoting Roberta L. DeBiasi. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this one could be borderline, but there is enough information available to write a reliably sourced article. She's referred to in independent sources as a "zika expert". She's being quoted in a lot of news articles as an authority on pediatric infectious diseases. Has published highly-cited articles. Natureium (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some independant coverage in various places, though not as significant as I'd have perhaps liked. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:13, 2 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 Blackout (2007 film). (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Lamothe[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is redirect to Blackout (2007 film). Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blackout (2007 film) per nom. It's not a fantastic target, but it's something. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 2 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. Izno (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Schilder[edit]

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

Unref blp in CAT:NN's backlog for 11 years. There are sources available, but not enough to meet GNG. Possible ATD is redirect to Raven Software. Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NCREATIVE. I actually couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV at all. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable composer of music for video games.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 2 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, without prejudice against refunding to draft if a better version can be written. BD2412 T 04:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Biennial of Contemporary Textile Art[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:EVENTCRITERIA, most of the sources included are primary sources and the other ones look to be mostly routine coverage. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not so easy to find out which event his actually is, there are a number of events with similar names. In the article itself here is mention of a 5th (2013, Argentina), 7th (2017, Uruguay) and 8th (2019, Spain) edition. Per the World Textile Art Organization's own websites, there have been 8 biennales since 2000: USA (2000 AND 2002), Venezuela (2004) Costa Rica (2006), Argentina (2009), Mexico (2011), Uruguay (2017), Spain (2019) and one is planned for 2021 in Chile. Events like the 13th International Biennial of Contemporary Textile Art are apparently not related. I looked up all the artists mentioned in the article and except Struthers, not one of them has an article on English Wikipedia. I didn't recognize any of their names, even though I am reasonably familiar with the the field. That may be a sign of my lack of knowledge, systemic bias against women artists, bias against textile arts, etc. On the other hand, I see very little that supports the idea that this biennale is notable. If it such sources exist, I have not been able to find them. Vexations (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were to stay, it would have to be a short two paragraph article with good sources. As it stands, the article is an ad that is pretty close the being G11 elegible.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wrote this article, so clearly I am biased. I wanted to let you why I have written this and more about it. It is a Spanish language focused and therefore not having english wiki articles is less surprising, but I was actually surprised when not a single one showed up. I believe the only textile exhibition (or bi/trianniel) to have its own wikipage is the wall hangings exhibition at moma from 1969 (which I wrote). So while the sleuthing Vexations did, discovering the biennial coequally known as the scythia biennial, which is also a major (though less important) textile biennial does not in fact invalidate this one. This biennial is the only large biennial of this scale that regularly changes country (that I am aware of, the European network ones only features 50ish rather than 200ish artists). The scythia event, like many others, is only ever in one country, the Ukraine for Scythia. There are major textile biennials in Poland and China that I will probably write about next. This biennial would at least be in the top 10 if not top 5 textile reoccurring textile events. If the format of the article needs to change, that's fine. There are very few textile artists on wikipeia, but it is hard to claim importance when none of the major international exhibitions have pages either.BF (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think ThatMontrealIP is right that even if we were to keep the article it would have to be rewritten. Spudlace (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RKSV[edit]

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

Most of the references are based on company announcements, basic financial reporting, interviews and other churnalism. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My own analysis agrees with that of the nom Fiddle Faddle 20:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SAMCO Securities[edit]

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

Most of the references are based on company announcements or basic financial reporting. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Ann Elsom[edit]

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

The article does not appear to comply to WP:N notability guidelines Phanachet (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance she does appear to meet WP:ANYBIO as someone included in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, but turns out that the publication makes a conscious effort to include a range of ordinary people as well. There is no claim of significance here or in her dictionary entry. This is a weak keep at best. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The only justification for a keep is that she included in DoNZB. More evidence that that criteria is flawed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I note that the NZ National Library has archived some of her papers (or ferns)[1], and I think this is her in the Cyclopedia of New Zealand (1903). Inclusion in two national dictionaries ought to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Also a reminder that, in that era, she may have been referred to as Mrs. Edwin Elsom or Mrs. E. Elsom in contemporary records. pburka (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly not one of the representative bios (as explained in the DNZB article). There have been dozens of AfDs of DNZB entries and they have all been kept. Clearly, having an entry gives inherent notability. Schwede 66 07:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pburka. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as consensus has previously to keep articles on ‘ordinary’ people in DNZB.Mccapra (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot. Draftified by the article creator with the agreement of the nominator. Sandstein 20:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skelmersdale Independent Party[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties. This hyperlocal party has little, to no, achievements and third party coverage which satisfies ORG and GNG. Political parties standing for election is not beyond what is expected for them which counts against an article. doktorb _words^deeds 19:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 19:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 19:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 19:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many political parties that have not had any elected officials or achievements of which to speak have had pages. Have a look under the No elected UK representation section of List of political parties in the United Kingdom for some examples.DanJWilde (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this reply. You are correct about other parties having articles. Some have gone through the AfD process and the community have agreed to keep them; sometimes the community agreed to delete. doktorb _words^deeds 19:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could I not just move the page back to draft space, and then re-upload it if and when they gain seats? DanJWilde (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DanJWilde: That is certainly one option. You may notice from my recent history that Residents' Association of London was a successful AfD on the same grounds, really, so moving this to Draft would be a great way to keep them "live" without having an article in danger of deletion. doktorb _words^deeds 20:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doktorbuk: I may move it to draft space then. I apologise, I'm quite new to the 'formalities' of Wikipedia, does this require some form of consensus? DanJWilde (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fauzia Nasreen[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ambassadors may not be inherently notable, but they should be. This one has RS, and has held two ambassadorships and one other prominent position in Government. Wm335td (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would be ridiculous if a bloke chosen by his city to play football (for the city) is notable whereas a woman chosen by her country to represent them and their country's future with foreign heads of state was not. Ambassadors should be notable without question. Victuallers (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Victuallers' rationale, Wm's source, and what WP:NPOL would say if I had my druthers. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are other RS on ProQuest, including this one: "Int'l Community must force India to talk on Kashmir dispute: Fauzia Nasreen" (The Balochistan Times, 2017). — Toughpigs (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ambassadors are notable. They represent their country. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 10:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Meets WP:DIPLOMAT. Mar4d (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of hills[edit]

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

This article has had no WP:Inclusion criteria since its creation in 2005; and I cannot think of any possible way of writing any. It is a grab-bag of geographical features sometimes but not always (e.g. Calvary) called hills. How much height or prominence must a geographical feature have to be called a hill? This article's scope is broad enough to include Beacon Hill, Norfolk (the highest point in the county, a full 79 m (259 ft) above sea level ("Very flat, Norfolk.")) and the Gog Magog Hills, Cambridgeshire (74 m (243 ft)).

We have several encyclopaedic "list of hill" articles, more or less tightly defined by location and by what constitutes a hill; such as List of hills of Brandenburg, List of hills in England, and List of hills in San Francisco. We could probably do with more of those.

I can see no kind of objection to a WP:LISTOFLISTS titled List of lists of hills - but it doesn't exist, and this article is not it.

This article fails WP:LISTN, rather badly.

Off-topic, because Hill is also a surname, and for light relief only. In the 1980s, a friend got a flyer from one of those companies who peddle surname books, culled from phone directories or whatever, offering him a volume titled something like Famous People Called Marsh. He replied that he would eagerly buy it if it included details of his long-lost cousins Hackney and Romney. They never did get back to him. Narky Blert (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't hill demonstrate satisfaction of LISTN? At any rate, this would be a navigational list to only include notable entries. We have a well-developed category structure at Category:Hills, what inclusion criteria is that using? And if the solution is to make it a list of lists, that’s development, not deletion. postdlf (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Expansion, restructuring, &c. are not done by deletion. The topic clearly passes WP:LISTN and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NEXIST, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom. Please define "hill". Narky Blert (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I of course agree that AFD is NOTCLEANUP. I encourage you to go through the 20,000+ articles which appear in ((intitle:hill)), and to add the relevant ones to the article under discussion. Successful WP:RESCUEs are to be applauded. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a navigation list, listing related items and linking to their articles. Columns would allow more information to be shown, location, height, etc, but whatever. AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 20:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hills shows there are a lot of articles for hills, including some on other planets. So listing all the list of hills in this article, plus any hill not on one of those list, I think could work well. Dream Focus 02:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too indiscriminate for a list article. Ajf773 (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hill is an inherently poorly defined term, and content is just a small but indiscriminate selection of those with hill in the name. Category:Hills has thousands of items in its subcategories, and it would be inappropriate to attempt to put all these pages in a single list that would also be indiscriminate in what may use this term (vs. e.g. mountain or butte) and have an article. The best comparison is Lists of mountains: a List of mountains would be likewise impossible! Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too broad a topic; Lists of hills would be needed. The article is necessarily arbitrary in its current form. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. A new article can be created as a index of other lists if possible. Azuredivay (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lists of hills, an article which no-one seems to object to, and tag for cleanup. We're far from TNT. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Far too broad and indiscriminate topic. Criteria is not defined. It is so broad and indiscriminate it includes a range from Seven hills of Rome to Signal Hill, California. // Timothy :: talk 16:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is one of those places where a category works great, but an accompanying list is almost impossible to create, manage, and define. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A PetScan query found 13452 distinct pages in the Category:Hills tree, excluding subcategories. WP:TNT and make a Lists of hills. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom without objection to creation of a list of lists. no reason to save this history, though, as there's nothing here that would be used in a list of lists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's a rough consensus that the MacArthur Fellowship is a strong enough indicator of notability to warrant an article as a "significant award" under WP:ANYBIO, and while the other sources seem very sparse, the current stub state of the article seems to be sufficiently verified to avoid any egregious WP:BLP or WP:V policy violations. ~ mazca ^talk 23:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Charles Jacobs Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is easy to find coverage such as MacArthur Fellows: The First 25 Years. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd say a MacArthur Fellow at least comes close to WP:ANYBIO, but not totally sure. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited above. WP:Not paper 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any real notability other then one (not major) award. A few trivial mentions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of "significant coverage" in WP:RS. WP:ANYBIO is only intended to show who is likely to be notable and creates a rebuttable presumption (see WP:NOTABILITY) but does not itself guarantee it. The lack of any "significant coverage" in WP:RS indicates that it isn't met. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade Piron (talk · contribs), I would love to see you write to The Republican, or controlling agent, and tell them they are not/nor have ever been a reliable source of information considering they have been reporting on notable topics since the 19th century. Let me know how that goes.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper report of someone receiving a prize is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "significant coverage". Did I ever claim that no WP:RS were present? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:NBIO. I fixed all the citations, which were in poor shape but the information was there (just moved). One particular citation [2] explains Jacobs' work leading to the award. I wouldn't call the award minor. Today, "The MacArthur Fellowship is a $625,000, no-strings-attached award to extraordinarily talented and creative individuals as an investment in their potential." [3] Normal Op (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So let's include him at MacArthur Fellows Program. At best, this is a WP:BLP1E case. He meets no conceivable notability criteria. WP:NBIO is guidance only. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apparently he's more commonly known as "Wesley Chuck Jacobs", and with that I found a few other mentions of him: a study/paper I don't have access to, an appeal he lost in a criminal case, a news article with accusations of financial shenanigans, and more of the financial story. Normal Op (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a MacArthur Fellow therefore meets notability criteria WP:ANYBIO Netherzone (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's like I'm living in the twilight zone or something. Everyone understands that you can start with these other guidelines but if they do not meet the requirements then you move on up the chain all the way to WP:GNG which rules them all. The supreme notability guideline supersedes ALL others. Please check it against that guideline before you nominate for deletion. A) Is it sourced? B) Is the source independent, which means not owned or affiliated with the subject? C) Is it a reputable, reliable and verifiable source? D) Does the source significantly cover the subject of the potential/existing article? E) Are the sources accessible by a large group of people (national/international)? If you can answer those questions with a yes then the subject meets Wikipedia's supreme guideline for notability and deserves an article if you want to write one. It's not intended to be subjective like many other guidelines and essays. Quite literal and should be taken as such.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of these guarantees the subject is notable. It even says that in the policy you just quoted. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: "Presumed" is not bold like the other items so it is not as important as the other criteria but is to be taken into account. In your nomination for deletion you didn't use or mention WP:GNG as a consideration. If it meets all of the bold criteria then it is considered notable enough for an article. ALL other guidelines are subservient to that guideline and can not preclude an article from inclusion so long as it meets the criteria of the literal WP:GNG.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how anything works. The fact that someone is mentioned in a WP:RS, even in several, does not mean that there is "significant coverage" as WP:GNG makes very clear. We are talking about "significant coverage" in an objective sense, not relative to its prominence within the source. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MacArthur Fellow proves it is a notable person. I believe they are better suited at judging someone's notability than a random group of people showing up here anyway. Dream Focus 22:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've always accepted the MacArthur Fellowship as a clear designator of nobility, and I see no reason to disagree with that choice here. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of MacArthur Fellows - it doesn't matter if he's won a award, that doesn't guarantee notability, it just creates a presumption. Here, we don't have any sources with which to write an article; literally all we have is that he won the award, and the award bio. We don't even know when he was born. And it's a BLP to boot. If there are more in-depth sources found or written in the future, the redirect can always be expanded into a proper biography. Le v!v ich 20:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO a MacArthur Fellowship is a notability pass. Lightburst (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the MacArthur Fellowship. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Zoozaz1 talk 17:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Hawk (Crazy Horse's brother)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even very quick search finds sources immediately, for example, [4]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG, also WP:NOTINHERITED applies.Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG, also WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply because it states that "notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Mztourist (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Click "Google Books" above, for starters. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merely passing mentions and more about his famous brother than him. Does not meet "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article." Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs are not passing mentions, though both are brought to you by the letter "P". DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions is all they are, no amount of sarcasm can change that. Mztourist (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are secondary sources posted in this discussion Spudlace (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know what the nominator means by no significant biographical details in secondary sources. Details of his life and death are available in Google Books. I added some, but there seems to be a great deal more in these books, with references to earlier coverage too. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY for DiamondRemley39's additions of reliable sources. It's easy to call everything a passing mention; far more productive to actually go and improve the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep argument is already made.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Zoozaz1 talk 17:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minnie Hollow Wood[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. The article suggests this person is notable for one event. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO – "The person has received a well-known and significant award ", i.e. the right to wear a warbonnet – an exceptional honour for a woman of her tribe. See PBS for a retelling of her heroism. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. The PBS coverage proves she is notable. Dream Focus 20:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: How does a four minute-long cartoon by a non-notable producer prove she is notable? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She won a significant award, and also got significant coverage in a reliable source. An animated documentary about someone is as notable as a page long article about them. Dream Focus 17:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than a hundred years has passed, and the person is still notable. Also, there is significant coverage. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by User:Andrew Davidson, User:Dream Focus and User:My very best wishes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is "the right to wear a war bonnet" an well-known and significant award? I get it is unusual, but is it in the league as the VC?Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: I will try to best answer you because it is a legitimate question. I am by no means an expert though I may be more of an expert on American Indian culture than some here it just comes with the territory. In simple terms it varies by nation. The Cherokee did not wear war bonnets or headdresses like the Plains Nations did. I've seen a few more today but mostly for ceremonial purposes. For the Sioux, the war bonnet was probably more significant than the VC or MOH of the present. A warrior (male and female) typically earned a single feather for bravery or an important act that stands out above all others so a single feather is more in line with the VC or MOH. That's how most American Indian nations viewed the importance of such symbols. It carried a spiritual meaning as well as being a physical symbol. Most braves were lucky to earn two or three feathers in their lifetime. Think of a war bonnet or headdress as a lifetime achievement award in which every individual award received is a VC or MOH.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: Do you have a source to support this, or is this original research? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: As with most stories and traditions of American Indian cultures most everything is passed down from one generation to the next orally. That being said, you can look at War bonnet to gain a perspective and, if you wish, there is a plethora of sources to comb over on the web. I have lamented in the past about the lack of written sources to back up the traditions of American Indian tribes and nations and how the standards applied to Euro-American traditions versus those of American Indian traditions can not be held to the same level when you start from a biased (not a bad thing) position. I encourage those who can to visit a reservation or tribal village near them to do so. I spent three weeks with the Navajo Nation in New Mexico and I practically lived on the Crow reservation in Montana when I lived there. It's where I learned an appreciation for the spiritual meaning of tattoos. Anyway, that's a start. I am passionate about this cause and I know I have ruffled some. I do apologize for that and will address those directly but I don't apologize for my passion or for defending the heritage of American Indians and traditions at every turn.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already looked up "war bonnet", and added a sourced explanation below describing how war bonnets were fairly ubiquitous. I urge you to find sources to support your comments. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand, I don't have to find sources to support my comments. The article stands on it's own without my comments. I was answering the question of an individual who is fully capable of digging for and coming up with their own conclusions. This is not a court of law and my personal comments and beliefs are not on trial.Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There seems to be some confusion about the status of WP:ANYBIO above. It only creates a rebuttable presumption that someone is likely to be notable (see WP:NOTABILITY) but does not itself guarantee it. Unless some evidence can be found of "significant coverage" in WP:RS, it isn't met. The PBS video is certainly relevant but probably is not enough on its own. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per this comment and that of User:Slatersteven, there have been several discussions about the presumed notability of award winners (User:7&6=thirteen has also been kind enough to post this AFD's at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Revisiting the Battle of the Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee). The criteria at WP:MILPEOPLE is obviously intended to cover large, modern militaries, and in several of the discussions about the notability of award winners, none discusses the applicability of this criteria to aboriginal communities. See:

Using the "well-known and significant award" criteria in this discussion seems to undermine the intended use of the criteria. My bigger concern is that war bonnets were fairly ubiquitous. This source states there could be several "war-bonnet wearers" in a battle. It undoubtedly was an honor to receive a war bonnet, but it is certainly not so rare as a Medal of Honor. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how is "there could be several "war-bonnet wearers" in a battle." relevant? thats like saying having multiple Victoria Cross recipients in the same action somehow reduces the significance of that honor (it does not). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of Braves were awarded a war bonnet compared to British solders awarded the VC?Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not sure, but if it is correct that "Few braves received more than three eagle feathers during their lifetime due to the bird's rarity and sacred status" (i know not cited) and regarding war bonnets - "With few exceptions, only high-placed leaders wor the headdress, and only on important occasions of war or peace." (page 29), than it would appear a small proportion. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads earned the right to wear a war bonnet because of her valor in combat against the U.S. Cavalry at the Battle of Little Big Horn. How does that not make her notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? If a white soldier won the highest medal and recognition possible for their valor in a historically notable battle, would we be having this same argument? Hopefully there is no cultural bias here. Dream Focus 05:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope we would. WP:BASIC applies to every article here. The war bonnet thing is immaterial. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brigade Piron, perhaps you and others here would like to see this for reference of what we speak. How many recipients have their own article and how many have been challenged? The war bonnet is only immaterial because you do not understand it or its purpose or how often an entire war bonnet was earned. So because you deem it immaterial it is so? Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tsistunagiska, I suggest you read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If there are articles in that list which you believe not to meet WP:GNG you'd be absolutely right to nominate them for deletion and I would absolutely support you. They are there because they meet WP:GNG and not because they happen to have won a medal. The wonderful think about Wikipedia is that the same standards apply to all. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that is true, the problem with SNG's is that they are treated as trumping GNG, which they should not. Thus I am not sure that a GMH winner would get deleted. But you are right, all articles should meet GNG and SNG should only be a "do not delete for a while while we look for sources", no a replacement for GNG.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: Give me a break. It took me all of two seconds to find one that matched your reasons for wanting to delete this article. No one brought up WP:GNG in any significant manner until I did so to try and turn it to use as part of your argument now is disingenuous. The argument you and others have made is that an article shouldn't be written for a person whose only significance is "one event". I ask you to review Charles Brown (Medal of Honor). He deserted the Marine Corps and never even received his medal. One event is the reason an article was written about him. There are countless others. I believe he should have an article. By your subjective application of Wikipedia guidelines he should not. After all, if a war bonnet is immaterial to you then perhaps simply winning the Medal of Honor should be counted the same.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsistunagiska, in that case please AfD Charles Brown (Medal of Honor) and I will gladly vote to delete it unless enough sources are provided to show that WP:GNG is met. To be absolutely clear, I do not think that earning a MOH (or any other medal) entitles someone to a Wikipedia page because that is not what any guidelines state. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: You called a sacred symbol of American Indian culture immaterial, which is the same as saying insignificant and irrelevant, and you simply can't see how offensive that is to anyone who is American Indian? The War Bonnet is so much more than just an award that was stored in a box and allowed to sit an collect dust. You weren't awarded a war bonnet for a single action. I know what the article says and if she was awarded it for her heroics in this one event then she must have done something quite significant to earn it. There were braves who lived their entire lives fighting battles and earning their feathers one at a time because it was incredibly hard to earn a feather. I know headdresses are worn today, mostly for ceremonial purposes, but that's not the case back then. It is woven into the very fabric of these American Indian nations culture and society. One of the whole in which every part is integral. It is not immaterial and quite significant in and of itself. An important moment in her life that was a display of her entire existence.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska:, your argument seems to based on the idea that "notability" is some kind of synonym for personal virtue. As the earning of any award or honour is not a consideration in WP:GNG, it is immaterial from the point of view of notability which is what we are discussing here. As an editor who usually works on African subjects, I am genuinely baffled by your arguments here. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: Your work on African subjects is immaterial to this discussion. My argument is that she does meet general notability under the essence of the guideline as many have stated here. What I find baffling is that an editor or any editor who has never written about American Indians, have never displayed an interest in American Indian culture or their people and just happened upon an article written about an American Indian would then juxtapose their own personal subjective view of Wikipedia guidelines and use those instead of the premier guideline to make their argument. If it passes WP:GNG then its a keep, if it doesn't, then it is delete but that was not the nominators argument. The nominator used two guidelines that do not supersede WP:GNG to make their argument because they can't make the argument that it doesn't meet general notability. Had they been able to that would have been the only guideline needed to be mentioned. WP:GNG supersedes all other guidelines, period. My personal feelings about the virtue of this woman only come into play when personal attacks or ignorance, not a slight but a reality, about the subject come into play and simply as an appeal to the better judgement of our human nature. It still does not supersede WP:GNG. Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except wp:gng does not include "highest award for valour", that is an SNG.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska:, if you actually look at them, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG are effectively identical. In fact, I was actually brought here by an attempted canvassing at WP:MILHIST and not, as you seem to think, by some anti-American Indian agenda. I am still waiting for someone to explain how the subject has received "significant coverage" in "reliable sources". Friends Of The Little Bighorn Battlefield probably fails WP:RSSELF which leaves two remaining sources apparently attesting to nothing more than her existence and award of the honour. Is that correct? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{od} @Brigade Piron: Unless you believe the ones who published Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield actually fought there or any of them are the subject of the article it is not self-published and if it was self-published it would still pass notability because it is not the sole source, it does mention the subject in a significant way and no one here is disputing their claim she had a significant enough role in her culture and this particular event that she received the war bonnet, a top honor among her culture, for her bravery and importance.Tsistunagiska)) (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: "self-published" refers to the publication process rather than the person who actually wrote it! It applies to "newsletters" and "personal websites" which have no obvious quality controls, such as the Friends Of The Little Bighorn Battlefield who seem to be a local group of enthusiasts. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that it is not necessary for any of you to "win" this argument. The person who gets the last word will not be rewarded with the outcome of their choice. Continuing to expand this wall of words only makes it more likely that the closing admin will simply skip all of this wrangling, and move on to the voters with more concise arguments to make. The best thing to do is for all of you to take a step back, and allow other editors to look at the article, and the sources, and make their own judgment. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO, yes, receiving the right to wear a war bonnet is "a well-known and significant award or honor", it is not "immaterial". Coolabahapple (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above, and to prevent further erosion of our coverage of notable women of colour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all of above. oncamera _{(talk page)} 23:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the many reasons already stated above Spudlace (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I don't expect that most people will know what it takes to earn a war bonnet. I'm not sure I could do it. This is the equivalent of winning a "Medal of Honor". She passes every criteria of a notable person per WP:GNG which is the primary and supreme decision making guideline for ALL articles. Such a strong woman and dedicated warrior to her people. She is an inspiration to me, personally.Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant honor of the war bonnet. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per various arguments above. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The relative status of a war bonnet is unclear, but even if it was the highest award and so satisfied #1 of WP:SOLDIER I don't see WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS of her and so she fails to meet WP:GNG.Mztourist (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the war bonnet is significant. Note to closing admin if this is looking like a delete, please wait another week to close as I'm gathering sources for Minnie Hollow Wood and others from my local library. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability criteria as per the significant honor bestowed upon this person, and the rationale listed above by many editors. Meets GNG guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Magnolia677 (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Soldier Wolf[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One just has to read the article to find a detailed source. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]
“The world’s mean,” he said as the plastic bottle crushed quietly in his old hands. “It’s mean everywhere. It gets meaner and meaner, especially now.”
— Mark Soldier Wolf

WP:BASIC requires "multiple published secondary sources". Are you able to locate others? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677, in addition to the Al Jazeera article, there are multiple mentions in the book 'Arapaho Journeys'; I've put it on hold at my library since the pages are hidden in googlebooks, but it may take a week or more for me to get it. I've also added several other refs and details to the article. (There is also a detailed obituary but it's published on the funeral home's site so not an RS, added it to External Links.)Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/wyoming-stories-mark-soldier-wolf-talks-about-life-res#stream/0 Dream Focus 19:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Al Jazeera source is excellent; I'm not sure why this was nominated. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Later participation broadly agrees that the expansion and sourcing of the article (which took place after most delete !votes) is sufficient to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 23:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One Who Walks with the Stars[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. The article suggests this person is notable for one event. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete No more notable than anyone else in Participants in the Battle of the Little Big Horn: A Biographical Dictionary of Sioux, Cheyenne and United States Military Personnel.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her role as a woman fighting in the Battle of Little Bighorn, one of the most significant events in the Indian Wars, is notable. Not sure what other white standards you need from her considering white American women weren't even allow to own property, vote, have a job etc at the time she was outperforming her war leader husband in battle per Custer's Fall by David Humphreys Miller (1957), pp.156-8. Found copied here for those without access to the book. oncamera 05:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough sourcing (or information) to meet notability guidelines. We know this about her: she was married to a Native American leader (who is notable), and she reportedly killed two soldiers at the Battle of Little Bighorn. That's it. This does not warrant a standalone article. This is a WP:ONEEVENT person who's article would be in permastub status for the rest of its existence. Either merge her to her husband's article or the article on the battle itself if what she did in that battle was really of much interest, or simply delete. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to say keep on this article. I've added a citation to a 2-page entry in a book, bringing the number of citations to four. It would be a shame to let this notable woman who battled Custer's soldiers slip through the cracks of history. Netherzone (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC).. Update: I've added a few more citations, bringing the total to seven. What is problematic in finding info on her is that she was known by at least three names. In one of the citations she's not in the index at all, but when I looked up her husband, Crow Dog, it mentions that altho he did not kill anyone in the battle, she was known to have killed two. Also, I happen to have the book Custer's Fall: The Indian Side of the Story by David Humphreys Miller in my home library where she is covered in pages 156-158, including a line-drawn illustration. I have numerous books on Native American history and ledger book drawings however many of them do not have indexes, so the going is slow, since I'm manually looking (page by page) for her under three name variations, as well as her husband's name. Netherzone (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added another citation supporting that she participated in the battle. Is there anything else she is notable for? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting and killing your enemies in battle was one of the highest achievements in Lakota traditional life. Even moreso for a woman. Even by white standards, this is a significant battle she fought in. oncamera 22:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone I don't regard any of the citations that you have added as anything more than passing references and they certainly don't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS. Lone Eagle, the White Sioux states "there was at least one woman warrior among the Indians who took an active part in the battle against Custer and his men. She was One-who-walks-with-the-stars, a young woman warrior. Crow Dog husband of One-who-walks-with-the-stars..." You have quoted in full all that Landmark Events in Native American History: Little Big Horn, Winning the Battle, Losing the War says about her: "Although Crow Dog did not kill anyone during the battle, his wife, One-Who-Walks-with-the-Stars, killed two soldiers who were attempting to swim across the river." I don't see where she is mentioned in "Native Americans & Little Big Horn~Sioux Treaty of 1868 - Stories" and the page seems to be largely self-published by a bgill with some documents and pictures. I can't access Lakota Recollections of the Custer Fight and request that you post all that is written about her.Mztourist (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: In Native Am & LBH-Sioux Treaty of 1868, she is mentioned in the section/chapter Sioux Participants in the battle of LBH, where it states: "One-Who-Walks-With-the-Stars, young Oglala woman, wife of Crow Dog; while rounding up stray horses on the banks of the river, she slashed and clubbed 2 soldiers who had escaped the Custer battlefield and were attempting to swim the river (25)." You may have better luck searching her using variations of her name, including indigenous names if known; it is useful whenever researching women. Women have often been written about in association their relationships, such as "wife of so-and-so, or daughter of so-and-so, or mother of so-and-so. Sometimes their name is unimportant or unknown to the writer because of womens' "lower" status. For example, in the Landmark Events book, I found her not by searching her name, but by searching her husbands name. Another example to clarify: in Chapter LIV of "History of South Dakota" by Doane Robinson, Vol. I (1904), and also Wilcolmb E. Washburn's The Historical Problems of American Indian Legal Problems, mentions her without using her name at all, but rather as "wife of Crow Dog". Historical systemic biases have made it much more difficult to research women, especially those who lived before the 20th C. (and the emergence of technologies such as computers, internet, etc) and perhaps also for those with non-Anglo names. See essay WP:BIAS, and also the section on Relationships in WP:WAW may also be helpful. Netherzone (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone it doesn't amount to SIGCOV. It just confirms the same thing, she was Crow Dog's wife and attacked or killed two soldiers. We have no substantive biographical details about her.Mztourist (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist thanks for sharing your opinion, however, I stand by my !vote. Netherzone (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons cited by camera and Netherzone. Article and references have been substantially improved from what they were when nominated for deletion. WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article and references have been substantially improved from what they were and hopefully more will continue to be added. // Timothy :: talk 18:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oncamera makes a strong case. Dream Focus 22:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: if this is looking like a delete, please wait another week to close as I'm gathering sources for the subject and others from my local library. Thanks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per oncamera and Netherzone, who have stated the case better than I could. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what I have seen added as sources. Though she is notable based on the sources I do caution one thing. Indigenous women doing things like this were probably more common than thought of. It's a concept that is fairly new to Euro-American society, relatively speaking, but is not exclusive. There have been strong and courageous women in every culture even if their stories were suppressed by the male dominated ethos at the time.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to Battle of the Little Bighorn - All the sources put forward so far are about the Battle of Little Big Horn, and they briefly mention the article subject and her role in that battle. I think, as a matter of notability, she would pass WP:1E because her role in the event is significant (enough to have been noted in multiple RS), but we have almost no information on her whatsoever, except her two confirmed kills in the battle. In any war, for any soldier, if the only thing we knew about the soldier is that they had confirmed kills in a battle, we would redirect the soldier's name to the article about the battle, and include the content there. We should do the same here; the reader is best served by reading about her two kills in the article about the battle. The redirect can always be expanded into a proper biography is more sources are found. Le v!v ich 21:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Netherzone is a careful !voter and I am please that they have done some research here to show that this person meets WP:N. WP:NOTPAPER Lightburst (talk) 23:13, 1 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging Bear[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. This and this had some information, but hardly enough to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment My time is limited now, but I added a source. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per this bio generations of Lakota medicine trained under him. There is a book written about his medicine powers, Talking to Spirits: Talismanic Relics of the Lakota Medicine Man, Pte He Woptuha and a second book as well. He is holy powers are also written about here in Yuwipi: Vision and Experience in Oglala Ritual. He is a significant holy man to his people. oncamera _{(talk page)} 00:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those links seems to be a WP:RS. Both appear to be self-published websites. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Oncamera sources above and I believe more can be found. // Timothy :: talk 18:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this notable and influential (sources to come later) medicine man. Note that I had better luck finding him under the name "Horn Chips" and that may be a more fitting name for this article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more material can be provided. Appears to fail WP:1E. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG, and not just for any one event, not just for being Crazy Horse's medicine man, but as a famed medicine man in his own right: [5], [6] (reviewed [7] and mentioned [8]), [9], [10] (reviewed [11]), [12], [13] and possibly [14] (reviewed [15]). These are all academic, and some of the books were reviewed in journals. The books cover Horn Chips's entire life (not just his connection to Crazy Horse, though of course that factors in heavily) and provide plenty of detail that can be used for an article. Plus this newspaper article: [16]. Le v!v ich 22:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets GNG, thanks to the research done by Oncamera and Levivich. Netherzone (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you Oncamera for your research. Passes our notability guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article reads saved traditional Lakota religion from extinction. Sounds like a notable achievement. Others have found sources proving his notability even more. Dream Focus 23:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified and added to the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above stated arguments and additional sources added.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:56, 2 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. For a discussion that by headcount is overwhelmingly keep this discussion brings up rather complex and thoughtfully advanced questions about notability. Those who feel this topic should be deleted rely on our standard measures ways of interpreting notability including the General Notability Guideline and argue, sometimes with a great deal of lament, that this subject simply does not meet our standards. For those feel this is a topic that should be kept the argument is not so straightforward but essentially suggests when looking at the totality of the information that notability has been established.

In cases like these the first question to ask is whether there is verifiable information about this topic, as notability requires evidence. While sources were presented which do not have information about this topic, and some general discussion about what place oral histories have in verifiability, there is a consensus that the information in the article is verifiable. The crux of the discussion therefore is not whether verifiable information exists, but whether enough such information exists and whether what exists adds up to enough that a standalone article is appropriate coverage of the topic. Ultimately the consensus of editors weigh in is that the answer to both those questions is yes and as such we have a consensus to keep the article. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Nose[edit]

Discussion about a possible close
Closing note: I've been asked to close this, as a neutral but epxerienced closer of difficult AfDs. I have a non-specialist awareness of the general situation, and am very aware of the policy implications. I am in the process of formulating the close, which may be fairly lengthy, as I intend to discus both the general and specific issues. I have a few questions I'd like answered: 1. I do not see the PBS show referred to exactly: can someone provide a link or transcript? 2. Where is the first or most substantial evidence that she was in fact known as a chief? What I consider a fairly trustworthy source for the tradition, ref. 4, refers to another woman in the battle as having worn a war bonnet, but not her. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply] DGG, thank you for the thoughtful questions. I can respond to #2: The Al Jazeera article states she was a chief by analysis of her attire… that's not as compelling as I'd like. I just found this textbook proof (pg. 230) that refers to her as a war chief. It’s only a caption, but they could have gone with “warrior” if they weren’t confident about it. SAGE seems to be reliable, though this appears to be a youth textbook. As an alternative to deletion, if that is how you are leaning, I ask that you consider the following options: merge to Laton Alton Huffman, who took those portraits, with a section about the portraits/her. The portrait on her article is used all over the internet, often without attribution of the artist or the subject, so it would be nice if Wikipedia were able to step up and put her name on it and add some sources. I see this as being a pretty good compromise. It would even improve the short article on Huffman. draftify so I (and others, if anyone else is interested) can work on the article. I'm getting more books and sources for these American Indian articles this week. I sometimes spend months on articles I create before they’re ready and I'll spend that much time to improve existing articles into the strongest they can be, too. I will call, email, and generally make a pest of myself until I can talk to someone who can give answers that lead to acceptable sources. The fact that a good 15 or so articles on American Indians of unclear notability were all nominated within, what, 1-2 days, has had my attention divided between them or I'd have begun this process. I'd like a good chance to improve coverage of Pretty Nose, whether that's in an article all about her or a section in another article. Thank you! --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply] @DGG: This one of several Native American related articles put through AfD. I believe that the PBS show and other stuff brought up in this discussion were in points made about the nominations as a whole, not about this one specifically. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply] Can we hold off on the close for a little? We've just gotten into a more substantive discussion of source material at the bottom. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about a possible close

Closing note: I've been asked to close this, as a neutral but epxerienced closer of difficult AfDs. I have a non-specialist awareness of the general situation, and am very aware of the policy implications. I am in the process of formulating the close, which may be fairly lengthy, as I intend to discus both the general and specific issues. I have a few questions I'd like answered: 1. I do not see the PBS show referred to exactly: can someone provide a link or transcript? 2. Where is the first or most substantial evidence that she was in fact known as a chief? What I consider a fairly trustworthy source for the tradition, ref. 4, refers to another woman in the battle as having worn a war bonnet, but not her. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thank you for the thoughtful questions. I can respond to #2: The Al Jazeera article states she was a chief by analysis of her attire… that's not as compelling as I'd like. I just found this textbook proof (pg. 230) that refers to her as a war chief. It’s only a caption, but they could have gone with “warrior” if they weren’t confident about it. SAGE seems to be reliable, though this appears to be a youth textbook.

As an alternative to deletion, if that is how you are leaning, I ask that you consider the following options:

merge to Laton Alton Huffman, who took those portraits, with a section about the portraits/her. The portrait on her article is used all over the internet, often without attribution of the artist or the subject, so it would be nice if Wikipedia were able to step up and put her name on it and add some sources. I see this as being a pretty good compromise. It would even improve the short article on Huffman.
draftify so I (and others, if anyone else is interested) can work on the article. I'm getting more books and sources for these American Indian articles this week. I sometimes spend months on articles I create before they’re ready and I'll spend that much time to improve existing articles into the strongest they can be, too. I will call, email, and generally make a pest of myself until I can talk to someone who can give answers that lead to acceptable sources. The fact that a good 15 or so articles on American Indians of unclear notability were all nominated within, what, 1-2 days, has had my attention divided between them or I'd have begun this process. I'd like a good chance to improve coverage of Pretty Nose, whether that's in an article all about her or a section in another article. Thank you! --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: This one of several Native American related articles put through AfD. I believe that the PBS show and other stuff brought up in this discussion were in points made about the nominations as a whole, not about this one specifically. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we hold off on the close for a little? We've just gotten into a more substantive discussion of source material at the bottom. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. The article suggests this person is notable for one event. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While biographic details are scarce, multiple independent reliable sources demonstrate notability per WP:BASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"). This is the case in many our short biographical articles of uncontested notability. Brandmeister^talk 18:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources were found in the previous AFD for this and are also in the article. She was a chief who participated in a historically significant battle so is notable as any white general from the battle is. Dream Focus 19:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is Arapaho war chief = United States Army General? Mind you Custer was a lieutenant colonel, not a general. Also no evidence has been presented that she played a significant leadership role in that battle. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Most of the sources are of a picture of her. That is not in depth coverage..Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth coverage is not a necessary requirement. WP:BASIC states that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" That's what we have here – breadth rather than depth. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her picture graces the cover of a book The Spirit of Indian Women (2005). She is discussed in The Frontier Years: L. A. Huffman, Photographer of the Plains pages 202-204 (as "Spotted Fawn" when she was younger not the same picture). Plus the other sources already in the article, and her status as a war chief during an important battle.

Slightly off-topic: Western American Indian culture treated all equally, chiefs had no special hierarchical authority over any other combatant, but a chief was a position of honor and respect at least, and we might find a way to equate that honorary position into notability. Our cultural biases against this sort of thing are the same that existed in the 1870s when people thought of leaderless Indians as chaotic and savage that required imposition of hierarchy. Thus people like Chief Joseph were thought of as great military leaders in the western press and to this day, but in fact they were not actually imposing top down decisions for the tribe (see Chief Joseph & the Flight of the Nez Perce). Still, a chief is someone the tribe thought of as being notable. -- GreenC 15:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons set forth in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Nose and further detailed by User:Brandmeister, User:GreenC and User:Dream Focus. WP:Preserve and WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources available to establish her notability. We do not need other thresholds for non-white people. The Banner talk 17:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her role as a woman war chief in the Battle of Little Bighorn, one of the most significant events in the Indian Wars, is notable. Not sure what other white standards you need from her considering white American women weren't even allow to own property, vote, have a job etc at the time she was leading warriors from her tribe. oncamera 04:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. The sources currently cited, some of which have rotted, are certainly not enough to pass WP:BASIC and are mostly WP:PRIMARY. For the same reason, the fact that her picture is often reproduced does not help in establishing notability. If she does have "significant coverage" in WP:RS that are not yet cited, feel free to add them but there's a real lack of policy-based voting above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no "rotted sources" at present. The Banner talk 18:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete per Indy beetle. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why? This is what I get from the sources:
- The Al Jazeera article is about her grandson, not about her. This is all it really says about her: "Soldier Wolf’s 101-year-old grandmother, Pretty Nose, was a veteran herself and her red, black and white beaded cuffs meant she was an Arapaho war chief. She had fought in the Battle of Little Big Horn..."
- The Archive Grid source is a description of photo collection which says a photo of her is included in it. Basically a directory listing, and it's sourced as an example of an incorrect identification of her tribal affiliation.
- The Princeton University Library source is a photo of her as part of a photo archive. No information about her given, other than identifying her as in the photo.
- The Montana Historical Society source is the same photo of her as the source above (I think, it won't load) with a similar lack of information.
- The Art Institute of Chicago source is a photo of her alleged sister (which has been determined by the author of this article through original research). Absolutely zero mention of Pretty Nose.

There is no demonstration of notability at all. Unless our notability criteria has been modified to read "Women who are not white and have been photgraphed are notable". All I'm getting from the keep votes above are "WP:ILIKEIT". -Indy beetle (talk) 06:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The picture (right) is not just a random snapshot; it's quite historic and it has been featured as picture of the day. It is therefore quite appropriate and helpful that we should have an article about the subject. WP:N is a guideline not a policy and so explicitly says that it is "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Andrew🐉(talk) 06:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. One well-used picture isn't enough. Mztourist (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously a notable historic figure as a war chief in a critically important notable battle. Netherzone (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And curiously no sources mention what role she played in that battle, other than she fought in it... -Indy beetle (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of western bias I mentioned above, about how we have preconceptions of what a chief does or that people have "roles" in battle, which runs counter to how plains Indians actually were. -- GreenC 17:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the source doesn't even confirm that she was a war chief (whatever role that would have placed upon her, if any) during the battle. For all we truly know she was given the title after the battle. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this notable war chief. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC) and edit: her being the subject of those photographs also adds to a case of WP:GNG. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above, and to prevent further erosion of our coverage of notable women of colour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find GreenC's argument persuasive. Having someone who's more experienced with the subject matter is always helpful in these discussions. The people who are voting delete so far do not seem to have that expertise. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly choose to believe many voting "delete" on all of these articles are simply ignorant of American Indian culture. I started out thinking that this is just another case of blatant bias but as I have went over each and every AfD and saw the attacks made I find myself believing that they just don't know what it's like to be a member of an indigenous tribe, even today. Chiefs, of any kind, were notable people. We have war bonnets being called immaterial. We have the one person who was the catalyst that caused the massacre at Wounded Knee being called insignificant and irrelevant. I liken it to the US in WW2 believing the Japanese were inferior pilots because their eyes were slanted. Likewise the Japanese believed the American pilots weren't brave enough to stay in the fight. It is just the case of two cultures not understanding each other. If you want to argue notability based on Wikipedia guidelines then argue your point for or against. Once you start pushing Euro-American cultural norms off as reasons to disprove notability in American Indians and calling deeply sacred artifacts of American Indian culture immaterial, you lose me as a possible ally in any discussion.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Like Brandmeister^talk 22:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tsistunagiska its not cultural bias or however you choose to frame it, its the lack of SIGCOV in multiple RS which is what every bio on WP requires.Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tsistunagiska: I've written dozens of articles on African figures (mostly Congolese politicians, including traditional chiefs) and wrote an article on the first Native American to practice law in North Carolina. I've also voted to delete this article. If I'm part of a cabal "pushing Euro-American cultural norms" I'm apparently quite terrible at it. I guess it's not possible that I gave my reasoning by listing all of the problems with the sources (because I totally did not do just that), and that I'm simply just an ignorant schmuck. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Indy beetle: Would you like a cookie? So the fact you wrote one article on an American Indian figure that focused almost totally on his political career makes you a cultural expert on American Indians? Did you research the Lumbee tribe? Dig into the subjects cultural past? I am willing to bet it was nothing more than just another word in an article to you. Argue your points about notability using your subjective opinion on what guidelines say and mean but don't pretend you are some expert on the cultural beliefs of American Indians because you wrote a few articles. It's quite offensive to those who live it every day.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Tsistunagiska: I didn't claim to be *an expert* on Native American cultures. You bet wrong by the way; I'm sure I know very little about the Lumbee tribe compared to all the material is out there and am certainly no expert on them, but I do like to think the word means something more to me seeing as I've personally known a member of the tribe and have spent quite a bit of time taking pictures in Robeson County, reading about their attempts to get full federal recognition, etc. All I was claiming is that I am quite conscious of countering systemic bias and cultural differences since I regularly work in undercovered subjects, and I wasn't seeing that as an issue in this article. Please assume a little good faith and consider that I wasn't satisfied by the sources (which in this case is not a cultural perspective issue, unless you can explain to me why), not that I'm just blustering about nuking articles because of my Western background. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The cultural perspective issue is that nobody involved in these AfD discussions this week is an academic expert in Native American history and culture. We're the group of Wikipedians who happen to be here right now. It is very easy for me to find good sources about my own culture and history; I have lots of books, and I know where to look for similar sources. It's much more difficult for me to find good sources about cultures that I'm not familiar with, and for an AfD discussion I'll do some database searches, but I'm probably not going to get out of my chair. Therefore, for any given AfD discussion, I will be able to offer better quality sources about my own culture than I will about a culture that I'm not familiar with. Also, many of the existing books are written from a dominant culture perspective, because there weren't a lot of Native American tribes in the 1870s that owned publishing companies. So the judgment of sources is not pure, or above cultural bias. It is more difficult for a random group of Wikipedians to quickly find sources about Native American culture than it is for that group to quickly find sources about dominant American or European cultures. It is a cultural perspective issue. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        SIGCOV in multiple RS as required by WP:GNG is not a cultural perspective issue. If SIGCOV in multiple RS exists the page can stay, if not it goes. If some "academic expert in Native American history and culture" wishes to recreate the page in future with SIGCOV in multiple RS then they are free to do so. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Toughpigs: Ok, so looking at her cultural background, she is most likely Arapaho naturally. The Arapaho language does not have its own written orthography (it's transliterated with Latin characters) thus if we're missing something it would have to be whatever the Latin transliteration of the Arapaho words for "Pretty Nose" are. Can someone figure that out and search it? And it seems most Arapaho language material is naturally audio-visual stuff, so the chances of us finding a published Arapaho language book on her are rather slim. The reason why I'm hesitant to buy into this "we couldn't possibly know enough to apply our standards so let's keep it" argument is that one, by that logic, we'd be keeping a lot of stuff that would not be notable. Secondly, in a similar deletion discussion that was in an area I'm very familiar with, I responded to the assertions that "there must be other source material" by doing fairly extensive research and finding very little in return. But, of course, if someone is willing to dig into an Arapaho specialist archive than we can give them time by draftifying the article. Call me a deletionist, but I think keeping an article when there is no current proof or direct hint of proof that it is notable per sourcing is a bad idea. For the record, I've found this news article which states that she was the subject of a modern painting series by a Native American artist [17]. Will it help with notability? Maybe a little, either way if this article is kept it should be added there. @Mztourist: You put my concerns plainly. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mztourist: I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment. In order for it to not be a culturally biased guideline all cultures would have to have equal coverage on all topics which we know, as it has been pointed out, is factually incorrect. We start from two different places on the spectrum of sourced works. Most of American Indian traditions, stories and related topics are passed down orally. The only reason we know as much as we do about the Battle of Little Big Horn is because American journalist had to go to the Sioux/Cheyenne tribes at some point, possibly years later, and write down their oral descriptions of the battle. Almost all content we have or know about the the battle came from the American Indian account. There weren't any written or published documents from the American Indian. It was orally translated. So to assume that, even today, the cultures start from the same point is ridiculous. I agree with you in that, as it is written, the guideline is to be taken literal. But it is a wholly biased guideline which discriminates against Indigenous people across the world and limits the ability to have them equally represented here in a global encyclopedia. This article does not assert anything about the subject that isn't true or can't be sourced. It doesn't make far-fetched claims. To say there is no cultural bias in the guideline, whether intended or not, is simple ignorance (again, not a slight as I am ignorant on a lot of things) of the cultures these articles cover.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Tsistunagiska: Yes of course Wikipedia favors written, published, secondary sources. Does this leave certain mostly-oral traditions at a disadvantage? Yes. But how else would you set a basis for creating an encyclopedia? WP:Original Research? -Indy beetle (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Indy beetle: It starts with an understanding and acknowledgement that there is a built in bias and finding ways to eliminate that bias by allowing inclusion so long as there are verifiable sources, even if self-published, or cursory mention is given when the claims made are not grossly exaggerated. Some of these people listed in the recent AfD's and still others will never attain the height of notability required according to these historically Euro-American and modern/contemporary favored guidelines. That does not diminish their import to history or their notability in regards to the story of their people. It's like Wilfred Holmes whose only real notability was the fact he came up with the ruse that fooled the Japanese at Midway. One event is his notable moment. He received an award for his part in that event. Beyond that, the article gives personal information but it all stems from that one event. I believe he deserves his article. I would vote to keep it if it ever came up for deletion but it won't. Why? Because the biased approach of the guidelines protects his article. He is American and a war veteran and has been covered in movies and books and press releases in a more modern era. It is not about righting wrongs but simply doing what is right. Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Indy beetle: & @Mztourist:: I agree that we need to find sources and improve the article for it to stay. I wasn't saying that "sources must exist" is a solid argument, or that we have to keep this article based on presumed or imaginary sources. Indy beetle asked for an explanation for how their assessment of sources could be affected by cultural bias, and I answered that question. In our quest for verification and notability, it is good for us to be aware of the perspective that we bring, and that "what I have in front of me" is not the same thing as "what exists in the world". That means that when someone brings up the question of cultural bias, we respond with curiosity and respect, as an opportunity to learn, rather than a policy challenge that we need to shut down. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Toughpigs and Tsistunagiska WP:GNG and WP:V are fundamental. You can't build an encyclopedia based on oral accounts as these may differ depending on the teller and can't be verified, making it no better than any self-published source. If a person or event is sufficiently important it will presumably be recorded in writing eventually and go through some editorial review process. Is this biased against cultures without a written history? Yes, but if information can't be verified it doesn't belong here and you will have to find another place to house it. Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mztourist: Doesn't belong here? Why? Because it's not European enough? Because White European/American's suppressed any knowledge of American Indian heritage and those who did try to keep to it were hunted down like dogs by racist military action? Then when it turned to the mid-20th century white people in high positions turned to Eugenics to eradicate the "tainted" blood of the indigenous and people of color from their society. I'm saying that a PBS show about a woman, her heroics and her war bonnet, a written account with a picture of a young woman from prominent artist and photographers of her time and the written account about the man whose action got his own people wiped out at Wounded Knee is sufficient enough to pass them as notable given the age they lived in, the culture they came from and the available sources due to the imperialist system of racism they faced. Quite frankly your dismissal of these facts and flat out rejection of any acknowledgement or understanding is appalling and speaks to the issues they faced and even still face in a world full of the same attitudes directed at indigenous people where they only measure up and are worthy of inclusion when they act like the "civilized white man". If that is the battle line you want to draw I will vote keep on every article just as a protest to your bias. I try to put thought into my comments and responses and even my reasons for voting the way I do. We don't have to agree but the indifference and the comment you just made isn't about policy as much as it is your own personal views so now you get mine.Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Tsistunagiska because those are the standards that WP is based on. If any page doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:V then it has no place here and can go on another site with different standards. Your outrage doesn't change anything, nor does your implication of bias and racism on my part. FWIW my grandfather was a member of the Quinault Nation who fought in the 1st Marine Division at Guadalcanal, but despite my cultural heritage I recognise and comply with the standards of the project rather than claiming exceptions for any ethnicity, because accuracy is more important than including dubiously sourced information. If you choose to "vote keep on every article just as a protest to your bias." rather than based on policy then that will take you to ANI or other sanctions as will any continued implications of racism. Mztourist (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{od} @Mztourist:, If you think for one second that your attempts to silence me by making threats are going to work you are wrong. My mother was Cherokee, my great-grandfather was murdered in a Nazi work camp in Germany. Just because of who your ancestors are doesn't make you right. Others here have voted to keep because these articles do pass ((WP:GNG)). Your meaningless threats directed at me personally will not silence me. Get over your superior attitude. Your opinion matters as much as anyone elses here.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsistunagiska: I think the crux of the problem here is Mztourist does not appreciate—like most editors—the implication that their vote on an AfD makes them a racist. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: How someone votes on an AFD makes them a racist? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: I also don't like being treated like my opinion on an article is any less important than someone else's just because you have a different opinion. It doesn't feel good to be marginalized, characterized and made to feel less than significant, does it? But since everyone here seems to grow around their opinion and then, when challenged, they claim the guidelines are objective I figured that's the typical way it's done. If you will notice, on articles that had no reliable sources I voted to delete so nothing I do is without thoughtful contemplation of the guidelines and rules. I am a warrior and I will always fight for these articles when there is just cause to and sources to back up the claims made. I won't apologize for that as I would not expect you to either.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsistunagiska everyone here is expected to make policy-based arguments and to the extent that you do that then your views are as valid as anyone else's, however if you continue to make emotive comments and veiled accusations of racism then people will take that into account and may well take you to ANI or other sanctions.Mztourist (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist (talk · contribs) That is the second time you have made a threat of ANI against me trying to silence opposition to your subjective views and opinions on Wikipedia policy. If you are going to do it then do it. You are making veiled threats against me while chastising me for your presumption I made veiled threats. I have been called biased by others. No one threatened them with sanctions, as well they shouldn't. As humans we are predisposed to certain bias as it relates to our experiences in life. Many of the American Indian community here on Wikipedia have been threatened into silence being told they can't create, edit or even comment on articles about their own tribe because, as they were informed, it is a COI. Don't pretend it isn't present or doesn't exist. The policy here, when taken to the extreme, both favors the traditional colonial powers who documented everything and are deletionist by nature, discriminating against aboriginal and indigenous people and the historical figures within their respective communities. I have never said we should allow something simply because it is orally spoken but I will remind you that anything, outside of archaeological studies and photographs, related to indigenous people is and was orally translated and just because it was written down by European/Americans doesn't add to it one shred of relevance to the people, some of which come here, who know it to be true. My argument was that, you can't start from two different places on the scale and try to apply the rules evenly. All you are doing is locking in the bias and furthering the agenda of past discrimination. Yo go from simply not trying to right the wrongs of the past, which Wikipedia has stated it is not here to do, to being an active participant in continuing the wrongs of the past. The guideline has to be more fluid in certain situations without losing the integrity of the encyclopedia. If a reliable and reputable source is found in which perceived facts are listed or portrayed about an event or person from before indigenous peoples were even known to have written records in which that event or person is notable or played a significant role in the history of their people that should be included here. But I compromised in that only the facts as they are sourced should be provided thereby achieving the general notability requirements. If a source can't be found it shouldn't be included. That is why I voted to delete those articles presented which had no reliable or verifiable sources. Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsistunagiska as Indy beetle has pointed out almost all of the history of Little Big Horn comes from Indian sources because Custer's force was wiped out. Yet as Indy beetle notes below, in 14 books about the battle (which include transcriptions of Indian oral histories of the battle), there is no record of her or her role in the battle. So we have multiple RS but not SIGCOV. So the page should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG, no matter how much you like it. Mztourist (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: Ok, again with the patronizing? I guess we are going to play that game. I also said the majority of the account of the battle came from the AMERICAN Indian perspective. Indians come from India ;-). I believe the article passes the essence of WP:GNG, as does a consensus of editors who have contributed to this AfD, no matter how much you DON'T like it. Deletionist are always the same. You go around looking for articles you think you can win on but you picked a topic and articles that a lot of people are passionate and knowledgeable about and you aren't just going to run us over with your theories or your personal bias against this particular article, and others like it, based on your own subjective application of the guidelines and essays. We can apply our own logic and thoughts. She has over ten photographs, enough description from multiple sources that are listed and historically she fits in the scenario as it is told. If you studied the history of the Cheyenne and Arapaho people you would know that. The article is not slanted in its approach. It tells everything as it has been described in the sources provided. It doesn't try to correct any narrative and it doesn't rely on oral attribution. Simply put, it states facts backed up by evidence. You can try to deny the evidence. You can try to overlook it but it doesn't change what it is, FACTS.Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add Wikipedia is "common sense" based. See WP:COMMON "a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." It makes no sense to treat certain topics from oral cultures as lacking notability because of poor written records. The application of rules is subjective based on the editors degree of common sense and personal POV, background, personal biases, informed on a subject and so on. When the rules are treated mechanistically it becomes like "only following orders" divorced from reality which can lead to bad things. -- GreenC 14:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: Ok, please show a reliabile oral source (which is inherently difficult because oral sources are almost always WP:PRIMARY) that can be used to expand this article. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has plenty of reliable sources demonstrating notability. The issue I raised concerns poor contemporary sourcing ie. tribal newspaper articles about her, tribal books etc.. because those things never existed in an oral culture. Add to that the culture was nearly wiped out in the late 19th and early 20th centuries so those members who could have passed down her story to subsequent generations were not around to do so, or had the native language and ways schooled out of them - there was a wildfire of sorts. Thus we look the evidence available and weigh that against the issues at hand. -- GreenC 00:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per various, especially GreenC's argument above - this is a case where I think it wise to err on the side of inclusion. Sourcing is going to be difficult, I think - not only is she native American, but she's a figure from the nineteenth century, which I have in the past found limits online sourcing severely. Which is why I tend to give a bit more weight to the sources that exist. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Draftify Updated !vote: changing to draftify because the NSOLDIER claim might not meet WP:V per the discussion below. Best to draftify it while research continues. My original !vote follows. Lev!vich 06:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC) - I agree, err on the side of inclusion for this article. The sourcing isn't really there, but she was a war chief. If I understand correctly, this is akin to being like a four- or five-star general leading a major battle. I can see the argument for merging, too, but her high rank justifies a stand-alone page, I think. Lev!vich 22:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Levivich: Can you please point us to a source which confirms that an Arapaho war chief was equivalent to "a four- or five-star general"? And if she was "leading a major battle" than why are there absolutely zero mentions of her in accounts of the Battle of Little Bighorn? -Indy beetle (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @Indy beetle: Well, the answer to your second question is easy: she was an NA woman in 1876. And I wouldn't say there are zero mentions; there are some sources, e.g. those in the article and discussed above. Heck, mentions is all we have. There are plenty of sources that say a war chief is, well, a chief in times of war, a leader of soldiers in combat, but I don't know of any that equate it to a general, although I didn't think that equivalency was controversial. In other words, I'm thinking any war chief would meet NSOLDIER 2, and while I'm a "WP:GNG or die" AFD voter, the one place I'm comfortable making exceptions is when the subject is a member of a historically-oppressed minority group. She's a member of two, so in this case I'm OK with a keep based on NSOLDIER without GNG. But if she doesn't meet NSOLDIER, if my understanding of her role is mistaken, then that would change my !vote. (Not that it would matter.) Le v!v ich 01:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Levivich: There are sources that say she fought in the battle. However, none of those sources say she led any forces in the battle. To clarify, no records that are primarily about the Battle of Little Bighorn mention her. Strange indeed seeing as most of what we know from the battle is from the Native American perspective, considering allmost all of Custer's forces were wiped out. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - No records we have yet examined. It's an important distinction. There are dozens of books about the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Not all are viewable online. There are still I can't guess how many articles in newspapers and journals. I'm not saying to assume sources exist, but we can't say the search for sources has been near exhaustive. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39: Ok, a lit review then (avoiding the works that focus mostly on Custer best I can tell) using "Pretty Nose" as search term:

Little Bighorn Remembered: The Untold Indian Story of Custer's Last Stand - a book which champions itself as revealing new indigenous perspectives and accounts on the battle; no genuine hits (I double-checked the false positives)
Legacy: New Perspectives on the Battle of the Little Bighorn - no genuine hits
The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn - no hits
Last Stand: Causes and Effects of the Battle of the Little Bighorn - definitely a more amateur work, no hits
Archaeology, History, and Custer's Last Battle: The Little Big Horn Reexamined - no hits
Participants in the Battle of the Little Big Horn: A Biographical Dictionary of Sioux, Cheyenne and United States Military Personnel, 2d ed. - focus is on non-Arapaho groups, no genuine hits
Killing Custer: The Battle of the Little Bighorn and the Fate of the Plains Indians - no hits
Little Big Horn 1876: Custer's Last Stand - says it profiles the major leaders of both belligerents, no hits
Bloodshed at Little Bighorn: Sitting Bull, Custer, and the Destinies of Nations - no hits
The Battle of the Greasy Grass/Little Bighorn: Custer's Last Stand in Memory, History, and Popular Culture - no hits
Little Bighorn: Winning the Battle, Losing the War - no genuine hits
The Day the World Ended at Little Bighorn: A Lakota History - declares it incorporates oral tradition, though definitely more of a feature on Lakota people, no hits
The Battle of the Little Bighorn - no hits
Cheyenne Memories of the Custer Fight - more of feature on Cheyenne, no hits

Strange indeed that here we have fourteen books on the Battle of Little Bighorn and none seem to mention Pretty Nose and her alleged leadership role in the battle (which even the existing sources do not attribute to her, they merely say she fought in it). I welcome others to expand the search. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: Yes, it's the beginnings of a literature review--and I say beginnings because it would have to be more than that to be a full literature review of something so major as this battle. It would also need to include articles from the likes of JSTOR and newspaper archives. I don't expect that here... from anyone other than myself. My take is that we'd be doing a bad job if we didn't look offline. Did you look at works about L.A. Huffman or generally search to see what's been written about him and his body of work? I'm in the middle of that now. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep user GreenC makes a compelling case. A war chief in a critically important notable battle, does anyone think WP:NSOLDIER#3 or #4 can be appropriate? Lightburst (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lightburst: 3 would not apply because we aren't even sure what war chief means in an Arapaho context (sources???), and 4 wouldn't apply because no source affirms she played a role of any importance in the battle. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have any of the sources given what the non-English version of her name is? I'd like to look for it in sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to as well, but none of the one's that mention her English translated name mention the Arapaho language version. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Research update According to Mark Soldier Wolf's obituary, his grandmother was named Cassie Little Aunt. "Grandma Cassie" is referred to on the photo of Pretty Nose in the Al Jazeera article about Mark Soldier Wolf. Here are two clippings about Cassie Little Aunt's life and death: 1 and 2. I went back and forth on whether Pretty Nose and Cassie may be the same person... Looked at census records for Cassie Little Aunt. She's rather consistently listed as born Jan 13, 1868 (though whether this was self reported or from other records I do not know). If that photo was indeed taken in 1879, that's most certainly not her. I lean towards the Al Jazeera article mistakenly called Pretty Nose his grandma instead of his great-grandma (which is what she is called in the caption). What does this mean? Well, when I have fresh eyes, I can look a bit more into Cassie Little Ant and her collateral family mentioned in her obituary and see who she is living with in census records to see if I can find her mother Pretty Nose mentioned by another name, etc. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39: This article claiming Cassie Little Ant was at the Battle of Little Bighorn says she was actually 10 years older than her date on the census, so she could have been born 1858, making her 21 in 1879 and possibly the same age as the woman in the photo. Little Ant (also known as Charles Little), her husband, may have been a chief himself because the Northern Arapahoe historical preservation office shared a photo of him wearing a headdress and photographed with the famous Wovoka. There are also documents/treaties with the US government that he signed. Maybe you could try emailing the Arapahoe historical preservation office and ask them if they know more about Pretty Nose/Cassie Little Ant? The Arapahoe census marks her down as being from the Cheyenne tribe before marrying Little Ant, so you may have to contact their preservation office to inquire about her under her maiden name "Red Necklace" too. oncamera _{(talk page)} 05:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says she had been thought to be 11 years older, but records suggested she was younger. My brief look at census records (several, and not just Indian census rolls but the federal census) skeep pointing to 1868. But I haven't looked closely enough or checked to see if I can tell that Cassie Little Ant and Charles Little Ant were the ones interviewed. One census record said that Cassie Little Ant did not speak English. Several records suggesting 1868 points to that being the one, though I'd be more convinced if I saw them more consistent AND older (when she is younger... the young remember their age and have little reason to fib about it). This will be good to sort out but it makes no difference to notability whether Cassie Little Ant and Pretty Nose are on person or two. Good idea of contacting the historic preservation office. Thank you! I'll get on that once I'm done with the books. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly draftify since biographical details are scarce. Pamzeis (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationales set forth. There is sufficient coverage (in an area where coverage can expected to be scarce for cultural and historic reasons) to support the significance of this subject. BD2412 T 19:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC),::@BD2412:[reply]

This is just a "hunch", but did you vote without even reading the reason for nomination (it's up at the top of the page)? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a "hunch". User:Magnolia677, you never actually understood WP:AGF? Your veiled personal attack is unfounded. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read the nomination well enough to see that it doesn't deter from the inclusion of this individual as an illustration in substantial works about the period. BD2412 T 19:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh golly! Just having a bit of fun, what with all this Covid around killing people. The reason for nomination was hard to see, tucked in way under a bunch of text and a large template that says "Please do not contribute further". Magnolia677 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I posted an opinion in this discussion precisely because it is the oldest active AfD that has not yet been closed. The article could be rewritten to state that some sources indicate its premises, without adopting them as true. BD2412 T 20:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok! No harm done. I've sometimes felt so strongly about an AFD that I too have just gone straight to the vote! it's kind of like this. I think your vote might not count though (because of the template). Anyway. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:17, 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 keep. While if it had no consensus we might consider deleting and BPLREQDEL is an important policy, there is a clear consensus to keep here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Meadors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was kept at AfD previously, however now we have a request from the subject of the article for the article to be deleted (otrs:11521543). I will remind the closer that under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, if a deletion discussion has no consensus and the subject wishes for the article to be deleted, it can be deleted. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, having a couple of Chairs named after Meadors looks wikinotable? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any reason to disagree with the past consensus that he is notable, in particular, as the head of a university (WP:PROF#C6). This article illustrates exactly why one should not pay to have a Wikipedia article created about oneself: because one cannot then subsequently pay to have it removed when it becomes embarrassing. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C6 at the very least. The article is not poorly sourced (a couple statements could stand to have their sourcing improved, but they're incidental enough that they could also just be removed). XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the comments above. For a regular college professor, even a moderately notable one, I would have been inclined to go with the subject's wishes per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. But a university president is a public figure, a fairly significant one, for college towns sort of similar to an important local politician. We should not delete an article about such an individual, even if he requests it, just because a negative event occured. The 'Controversy' section is neutrally written and well sourced. It is not too long and doesn't overwhlelm the rest of the article. The BLP issues here have been handled properly. The subject is notable, and not just under WP:PROF#C6 but under WP:BIO/WP:GNG as well. With all due respect to the subject's wishes, the article should be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as others have already said. The subject can make edit requests via the talk page if need be. -Kj cheetham (talk)
Keep. The article says he was "accused of urging a vice president to destroy a letter that said the offer would be in exchange for renewing Aramark's contract". This seems to be correctly sourced. And urging now en:wp to destroy an article that says he urged someone to destroy... is only a PR error, turning what could be argued as a one shoot error into a behavioral pattern. Pldx1 (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Censurado. Izno (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baila Conmigo (Ranking Stone song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG — Status (talk · contribs) 17:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to its parent album Censurado – this album did at least chart on both Top Latin Albums and Tropical Albums... the artist doesn't appear on Billboard's website, but the chart positions of this album can be verified [18]. Richard3120 (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Censurado. Fails on its own, but the album was successful. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adelén#Singles. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baila Conmigo (Adelén song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG — Status (talk · contribs) 17:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adelén: Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adelén#Singles. Fails WP:NSONG – it was only released in her native country, and it didn't chart there, so there's unlikely to be any coverage outside of Norwegian media. Richard3120 (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arcon 2[edit]

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

not seeing how meets WP:NBAND Laun chba ller 16:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in Drum 'n' Bass: The Rough Guide ([19]), and a bio and review at Allmusic, satisfies WP:GNG, and indicates that further coverage is likely to exist. --Michig (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional coverage in reliable sources identified above that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Journal of Japanese Philosophy[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded arguing that this, being "the first multilingual European journal published in the field of non-European philosophy", has historical significance. There are no sources discussing this "historical significance" and being the first journal in an area is not enough for notability (GNG or NJournals). The argument about Eurocentrism and structural racism is nonsense: both the Science Citation Index Expanded and Scopus, for example, include numerous journals that are multilingual (or published in another language than English) on non-Western subjects. Therefore PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only see the journal in 6 libraries worldwide. I am not finding evidence of notability. Wm335td (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there's debatable evidence of some historical habitation, that's not a criterion of WP:GEOLAND, and nobody's been able to find much evidence of any legal recognition, or indeed coverage, to demonstrate notability even under the fairly generous bar of that guideline. ~ mazca ^talk 23:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rookins, Missouri[edit]

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

The state historical society piece linked in the article calls it "Rookins Post Office" and says it was located in a country store. Doesn't appear on the small-scale topos until after it gets entered into GNIS. Somehow, the modern topos show a Rookins Cemetery at the site, despite the old topos calling the cemetery Moore Cemetery. Not a community in the sense that WP:GEOLAND is met. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Clearly just a post office. Mangoe (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People lived here, shopped here, died here, and were even buried here in the local cemetery of the same name.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a cemetery in the middle of a cow pasture near where I live. There was also an old house near there where people were born/died. Does that make the cow pasture notable? Hog Farm _Bacon 03:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the cow pasture is the site of a ghost town, yes it probably would be notable.72.49.7.25 (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - By which you actually mean "no", since you're saying that something else (namely, a town) is necessary. Listen, private plots are everywhere in the US: there's one behind my house wedged between the elementary school and the back of the Safeway. There's another out in some farm fields a ways west of here. If Find-a-Grave calls it the "Rookins Cemetery" it's pretty likely that they did so from some source (like WP) which identified the area as Rookins, rather than from some public records. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Somehow, the modern topos show a Rookins Cemetery at the site, despite the old topos calling the cemetery Moore Cemetery. A post office, in 1886, would require employees to live near the post office, and furthermore would require either civilian or business customers to exist. That seems like prima facie evidence of habitation to me, thereby passing the bar of notability set by WP:GEOLAND. SITH (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @StraussInTheHouse: - There are two issues with your statement. First, habitation is not what's needed for a WP:GEOLAND pass. Legal recognition as a community is. The legal recognition at Rookins is at the post office level, not the community level. Second, rural post offices in 1886 were not what post offices are now: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yolo, Missouri, where a post office in a store was held to be not notable, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberta, Missouri, where another isolated post office was deleted. Generally, these seem to have been one-man outfits usually within someone's store. I've seen instances where the post office was on a rural farm. Before the advent of Rural Free Delivery, there were rural post offices in stores/farms/mills everywhere, for transportation purposes. A pre-RFD post office is not prima facie evidence that the area was habitated by anyone other than the postmaster, and post offices with no associated legally recognized community are generally not held to meet GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon
Delete "Habitation" is NOT the bar of notability in GEOLAND, which requires legal recognition (e.g. incorporation or enumeration) or significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the county per WP:ATD-R. Delete as a second choice. --Izno (talk) 03:13, 3 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. Izno (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Ge (actress)[edit]

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

I can't find any (non-Chinese) sources to show the notability. Same user is spamming this article to every-language Wikipedia. Stryn (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Stryn (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---> Re: Stryn

Whoever claims the notability for this article must specify what types of any other language, except for English or Chinese, can always satisfy the criteria for the referenced articles to be written in, as long as the claimer believes that any written-in-English information can always accomplish it. I require the claimer above to give the definition of the word "spamming": over HOW MANY variations of the original translated article are determined to be "violations" against the Wikipedia guidelines. For example, the 35th president of the United States of America; John F. Kennedy has been translated in 29 languages, so it seems the claimer above would love to mark the 28 variations out of the original English article as the "spams". If the claimer thinks that any non-English reference sites were short of notability on the English Wikipedia, the entire audience of it might be diagnosed from critical multi-linguistic disabilities. Besides, it is theoretically impossible for a living user like me to publish each translated version of an article on "every-language" of Wikipedia server.

Supremarguax (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep NetEase, Tencent QQ, Sohu, and Xinhua (via syndicate), constitute WP:RS. Nominator has demonstrated no awareness of WP:NONENG. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to lacking multiple in-depth reliable sources and the article likely being created by a COI editor. Just as a short breakdown of why the sources that have been provided are lacking, Tencent QQ is a paid video streaming platform and the link to it isn't about her anyway. so it doesn't work. The NetEase source might work, but then they own Tencent QQ and the article smells like a non-neutral puff piece. For some weird reason the Xinhua (via syndicate) article is also to NetEase (likely more promo reasons involved) and is just as puffy. While the SoHu "article" is about "City Lover" and Ma Yanting and Ma Ge isn't mentioned in it. Maybe they are the same person, I don't really know. They could be the same person (Ma Ge did play in the film). Even if they are the same person SoHu is an entertainment blog and blogs are not considered reliable sources. So, that's really it. Essentially nothing. Except maybe the one NetEase promo puff piece if I wanted to be generous, but I don't and it takes "multiple" sources for someone to be notable anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---> Re: Adamant1

Please avoid simply utterring your delusions without submitting any official definitions from Wikipedia guidelines to support your arbitrary assumptions above:

"reliable sources (Explain what can be a definitively reliable source on Wikipedia quoting references)"
"likely being created by a COI editor (TRUTH: I translated it without using it)"
"the link to it isn't about her (TRUTH: Tencent QQ is always proving both the information and the full streaming movie for free, in which she co-starred in 2016: Dispel Demon)"
"article smells like a non-neutral puff piece (Information has no smell on Wikipedia at all)"
"For some weird reason (Unspecific expression to downgrade your reliability)"
"via syndicate (Show the evidence that a syndicate is controlling the website and provide the definition of your word syndicate)"
"Ma Ge isn't mentioned in it (TRUTH: Ma Yanting is identical to Ma Ge who played a role called Yu Fang in the drama series)"
"SoHu is an entertainment blog and blogs are not considered reliable sources (You must try to establish a decisive border line between some perfectly reliable encyclopedic sources and the consequently stored information on weblog services, before disregarding blogs.)"
"Essentially nothing (TRUTH: This article is not blanked obviously)"

As I listed here, your opinion is full of dogmatic arrogance, and there is NEITHER objectivity nor neutrality for persuading everyone to delete this article after all.

Supremarguax (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you must be a real special kind of snowflake. I guess that's how people who's pay checks depend on articles not being deleted would act though. Anyway, first of all, I don't need to "explain" anything. Especially what a reliable source. The guidelines do that accurately enough and anyone that can't find and read over them on their own shouldn't be participating in AfDs.

Second, your likely a COI editor because you've only edited her page a few others that are closely related to her. Your clearly not a recreational Wikipedia editor who is doing it just because your interested in Chinese actresses and films. That you "translated it without using it" (whatever that means) is completely irrelevant. IMO, your overly personal and way aggressive response just confirms it.

Third, "Xinhua (via syndicate)" was a direct quote from CaradhrasAiguo who said "and Xinhua (via syndicate), constitute WP:RS." Obviously, it had nothing to do with a "syndicate." Someone with a basic level of English understanding would know "syndication" refers to the sale or licensing of material for publication. I could see where you wouldn't know that though, what with you being a paid editor from China and all that.

I'm not going to respond to your comments about Tencent QQ and Blogs, because anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of the guidelines knows why both are not reliable sources. Plus, like I said I'm not going to waste my time explaining the guidelines to a SPA COI editor such as you. You can find them pretty easily on your own anyway. If you really want the article to be kept, I suggest you read up on them so you have a better line of time for the next person that votes delete then "your a horrible person." --Adamant1 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---> Re: Adamant1

First, again I pick some parts of your latest statement above against the validated facts I own:

"people who's pay checks depend on articles not being deleted would act (If I were a verified paid editor on Wikipedia, I thoroughly welcome you to disclose my PayPal ID, bank account number and crypto-currency wallet addresses that were used for the payments)"
"The guidelines do that accurately enough (There is always room for discussing conflicts on deletion-pending articles on Wikipedia because the guidelines are too imperfect to provide any absolute definitions of actions to solve issues)"
"Your clearly not a recreational Wikipedia editor who is doing it (What happens if anyone who has neither any career of deeply researching nor any interest in the topic created a new article on Wikipedia? It is practically impossible for an author to create a new page without any interest in it but just based on robotic neutrality, as long as the author is a living human being)"
"anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of the guidelines knows why both are not reliable sources (Submit the lists of the officially certified unreliable sources on Wikipedia before criticizing Tencent QQ and Blogs)"

Second, I feel sorry for the partially corrupt grammatical structures of your written English phrases as if they were automatically transferred from your spoken words:

how people who's pay checks depend ---> how people whose pay checks depend
what a reliable source ---> what a reliable source is
your likely a COI editor ---> you are likely a COI editor
her page a few others ---> her page and a few others
just because your interested ---> just because you are interested
your a horrible person ---> you are a horrible person

If you suppose that I am a non-native-English-speaking paid editor from China, I recommend you try some free online grammatical precision checking services like PaperRater.com before publishing, in order to establish even more formal linguistic accuracy of your all statements on Wikipedia than I do usually, so as to prevent every audience from confusions.

Supremarguax (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cregan Joseph[edit]

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

There seems to be very little information available about this Canadian field hockey player. I don't think he meets WP:BIO, as he hasn't received enough attention in reliable, independent sources as far as I can tell. Fram (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable field hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets WP:NATHLETE, no WP:Before. Pappagena (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify which part of WP:NATHLETE he is supposed to meet. And I did a WP:BEFORE, and couldn't find decent independent sourcing. The sources you added aren't independent sources either, they are the organisers of a competition and the ones responsible for the team. Fram (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:BIO. Sources in the article do not provide significant coverage and additional sources could not be found in a Google, JSTOR, or Gale search. An athlete winning a regional indoor field hockey tournament does not grant notability in our guidelines and policy. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against recreating as a redirect to a suitable target, if desired. ‑Scottywong | [comment] || 05:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pendulum rocket fallacy[edit]

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

I don't think this concept meets WP:GNG. It seems to be based on a single page/post from someone in 2001, which as far as I can tell is where the term was coined. I'm not even sure of the quality of that source either. Since then, all that seems to exist are things like forum posts that refer back to the original page, or WP's page (or one of the countless mirrors/reprints out there). Searches of older books (that I have access to search) give nothing. I just don't think there's enough to sustain an article here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based solely on a dead self-published web page. Agricolae (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is about a specific claim of a supposed physical principle then it seems to be about a non-notable topic. If it is about the physics of rocket stability then that is certainly a notable topic and one that Wikipedia doesn't seem to cover but WP is still very young and woefully lacking in its coverage of many topics. It could, I suppose, be covered in Flight dynamics (spacecraft) but stability is rather a special case and, I think, mostly applies in the atmosphere. Fighter aircraft are designed to be unstable and maybe rockets are at least accepted to be so. Thincat (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now found Attitude control. Thincat (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. The source is a GeoCities page, for crying out loud. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources may be hard to come by, however. Book. Several Youtube videos - this one has 219,000 views. I find discussion of this on several rocket forums as well. Wm335td (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The text in that "book" (at least the synopsis) is a verbatim copy of the Wikipedia article, which is what I was alluding to in my original nomination. This is unusable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher of that book is apparently "The". Not a great sign. Also, YouTube videos are almost always unreliable sources, and rocket forums are user-generated content and thoroughly unreliable for our purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter For sure. That is why I withheld. Forums, and Youtube and self published. What causes me to delay opinion is this concept has had some traction since 2012. Wm335td (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Not enough independant significant coverage that I could see. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/24072-pendulum-rocket-fallacy/ was more informative than the wikipedia article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect ~~or merge~~ to Attitude control. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. Geocities? -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept is interesting, but there is zero sourcing that establishes notability.TH1980 (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attitude control or Directional stability. This fallacy is discussed in literature, often with reference to this article: [20], [21], [22], [23]. It appears to be a notabile topic but we are lacking non-circular sources to write a full article on it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what though? The first source you give simply references the Wikipedia article; that's no good. The second source is just the first from a different repository. The third just makes a quick mention of the name while citing the same original webpage. Is it even talking about the same topic? This is an WP:OR minefield. And lastly, the fourth just cites the Wikipedia article (c. 2009) again. Certainly none of why this is considered a "fallacy", especially in regards to the history with Goddard, is reliably sourceable. There's a nontrivial mass of WP:CITOGENESIS here, and we need to tread carefully. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deacon Vorbis, we agree that the sources are not reliable. I gather that you're arguing that since the material is not reliably sourced, it is not eligible to be merged. I disagree per WP:DEMOLISH. Looking at this a bit closer, I have uncovered Directional stability as an alternative merge target. ~Kvng (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to attitude control ~~Robert H. Goddard~~ since it fails WP:GNG for seperate article.~~ --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Striking attitude control because it deals with the spacecraft attitude control. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, normally that might be reasonable, but there's no reliably sourced content here to merge, which is what I was trying to get at above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking back to Robert H. Goddard. Attitude control is now an aerospace concept, not just a spacecraft concept. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (edit conflict)Rockets and space travel go together so the fact that thank attitude control deals with the spacecraft is appropriate. Thank you Thincat and Kvng. WP:ATD-M very good merge target. If we could find sources I would say keep. As it stands the Kvng sources seem to indicate that a merge is best. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ or Delete depending on consensus. If anything, it belongs in attitude control or rocketry. The sources used (a YouTube video) are not WP:RS and should not be included in either case. I lean towards Delete for now. MrAureliusR_Talk! 15:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my vote to Delete, I really don't see the sourcing issues being fixed any time soon, and it doesn't seem to meet WP:N. MrAureliusR_Talk! 20:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I would add this as a source to this article, but there is an ongoing discussion at the talk page, and I will not feed those who will say I am edit warring. Vermeulen, Arthur; Netherlands Defence Academy; Helder, Den (April 21, 2016) [2010]. "Missile Design: a Challenging Example for Control Education". IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 42 (24). The Netherlands: Elsevier: 65–70. doi:10.3182/20091021-3-JP-2009.00014. Retrieved September 30, 2020. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To decide the fate of this material, we need a better handle on the sources that have been presented. This is my take:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Swpb
Bowery		? self-published; not enough info about "Jim Bowery" to establish expertise	thorough discussion of the topic	? Unknown
Dax		The "text" of this "book" is a copy-paste of the article. This is not a source at all.		✘ No
Lima, Gonçalves, Costa, Moreira		Presumably reliable academic source	? Based on abstract alone, this has tangential relevance that may be used to reference statements, but does not appear to speak to notability of the rocket fallacy	? Unknown
Manley video		~ Manley is an astrophysicist by degree, not a totally random youtuber. Whether you take this as sufficient expertise or not, the form of the source does not moot the expertise.		~ Partial
Vermulen	the only reference to the fallacy in this paper is a citation of this Wikipedia article	Presumed	significant discussion of rocket attitude and the thrust vector, but not the fallacy as such	✘ 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)).

The pendulum rocket fallacy is a real thing that could stand alone if better sources could be presented, but given this current set, I lean toward merging to attitude control, and citing Bowery and Manley there. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 16:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Swpb You missed this one. Vermeulen, Arthur; Netherlands Defence Academy; Helder, Den (April 21, 2016) [2010]. "Missile Design: a Challenging Example for Control Education". IFAC Proceedings Volumes. 42 (24). The Netherlands: Elsevier: 65–70. doi:10.3182/20091021-3-JP-2009.00014. Retrieved September 30, 2020. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That paper's only reference to the fallacy is a citation back to this Wikipedia article, but sure, I'll add it to the table if you want. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 16:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: I found eswiki and frwiki versions of this article. Should their cited sources be assessed for this article? --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They just cite the same Bowery source and a Reddit thread, so no. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Swpb. Reyk _YO! 16:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting concept and a wrong-headed theory. Finding sources that are not from the Wikipedia article itself is problematical. The prior poorly referenced/cited version of the article here had a lot more information deserves your consideration, but wound up on the cutting room floor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong? The lack of content isn't the problem, it's the insufficiency of sourcing. If you've got more sources to look at, bring them. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 17:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing with you. I understand that the sources are the problem. The deleted content is there (and that's why I mentioned it), but we still need sources. If that can't be cured, than it should be MERGEd. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because there doesn't appear to be any RS we can use to cite this content on any page. The article begins The pendulum rocket fallacy is a common fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanics of rocket flight ... well, how common can it be if we can't even find a reliable source talking about it? Bowery and Manley are self-published sources and there doesn't appear to evidence of their expertise sufficient to satisfy WP:SPS. The other sources are unreliable for reasons explained above. If we had an RS, then I'd say merge, but so long as we don't, it should just be deleted. Otherwise we risk that this is a type of hoax, or at least, there is no support for our stating that this is a "common" fallacy, and we don't need to be covering obscure fallacies that are not covered in reliable secondary sources. Our job is to summarize reliable secondary sources, and here we have none to summarize. Le v!v ich 17:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found some reliable sources about Goddard's flight but they don't well describe the fallacy. I have deleted the OR explanation of the fallacy and marked it historical, since no rocketeers have ever tried the pendulum design of a rocket after Goddard. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an obvious "merge" or "delete". Why edit war about including the link? My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to rocket. Parts of this article have been properly sourced. Unsourced materials are removed. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect This doesn't seem to be used for anything but Robert H. Goddard's early work. I watched a YouTube video explaining it, it just his mistake he made with one of his rockets. Not sure why it got its own name. He made a mistake thinking that having the fuel at the bottom to stabilize it, and the rocket at the top, would make it balance out. First rocket he fired like this went off course, and proved that wrong. No sense having a name for every single mistake anyone ever made. Dream Focus 01:33, 4 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space techniques[edit]

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

This article is a little more than a WP:DICDEF. No potential for expansion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially a category using See also section to provide the members. As an article it is unlikely to ever be more than a DICDEF. Agricolae (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since we are not a dictionary. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Legend of Zelda speedrunning records[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS. The article is a collection of speedrun records sourced to Speedrun.com with little commentary. Speedrun.com is just a leaderboard, and as such, is reliable as authentication of run times, but does not prove any notability. There are some reliable sources here that do discuss Zelda speedrunning, but most of them talk about the games individually and not as a collective. Therefore, this topic can be discussed in the respective individual game articles if wanted. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 14:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 14:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Speedrun.com is not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense of the word, and this sort of topic is never going to be covered enough in reliable sources to write a comprehensive article on the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like fan trivia and NOTSTATS to me; probably more suitable for a Zelda Wiki or something Spiderone 08:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Super Mario speedrunning records. Non-notable collection of stats based around non-notable gamers. Ajf773 (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move it to their respective game articles. Enjoyer of World^💬 10:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom as in contravention of WP:NOTSTATS._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Not suitable for an encyclopedia. Nigej (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As the creator of these articles, I approve. I've always regretted writing these articles because they require a ton of upkeep, and sourcing world record stats is weird. These pages were never supposed to use Speedrun.com times, because plenty of publications were covering new world records. But that ended up the easiest way to keep track and it's all just kinda pointless. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles like this are nearly impossible to keep up to date, and should be left to fan wikis or speedruning sites. This article has objectively false information, which is not a standard Wikipedia should ever set.ViceChairman6492 (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there were both keep and delete voters in this discussion, the argument that this article violates WP:NOTSTATS was not adequately refuted. There do indeed seem to be some reliable sources that discuss speedrunning on Super Mario games, and those sources could likely support a Super Mario speedrunning article that discusses the various aspects of Mario speedrunning and its history, rather than a listing of the various record holders and their times. I'd be happy to restore this article in someone's userspace if they would like to grab sources from it and use it as the basis for a more general (non-list) article on Mario speedrunning, or merge some of its content to other articles. ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 05:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Mario speedrunning records[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS. The article is a collection of speedrun records sourced to Speedrun.com with little commentary. Speedrun.com is just a leaderboard, and as such, is reliable as authentication of run times, but does not prove any notability. There are some reliable sources here that do discuss mario speedrunning, but most of them talk about the games individually and not as a collective. Therefore, this topic can be discussed in the respective individual game articles if wanted. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 14:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 14:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as you stated, "this topic can be discussed in the respective individual game articles if wanted". Foxnpichu (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable collection of stats based around non-notable gamers. Ajf773 (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a mirror site for Speedrun.com Spiderone 08:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the place for stats is within the game or on the game host. Wikipedia is not a games stats site. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with some of the legacy sections of each of the games. The speed running community is definitely an important factor of each of the games' longevity, which can be seen within some of the good secondary sources cited on this article such as Vice and Kotaku. Also, I would like to comment that "Backwards long jump" is redirected to this page, as seen here!. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshiman6464: That can probably be retargeted to List of video games notable for speedrunning#Super Mario series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Nigej (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With certain exceptions, notability is not defined. Records mentioned by third party sources, should be included in their respective game articles within reason.DMT biscuit (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. WP is not a collection of stats. If an individual list item is notable and sourced, it can be included in the appropriate article. // Timothy :: talk 16:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As the creator of these articles, I approve. I've always regretted writing these articles because they require a ton of upkeep, and sourcing world record stats is weird. These pages were never supposed to use Speedrun.com times, because plenty of publications were covering new world records. But that ended up the easiest way to keep track and it's all just kinda pointless. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like I'm going against the grain here. Mario Brothers speedrunning is a notable subject, and its practice and community have significant coverage apart from the games themselves. This is a way to cover that notable subject in one place rather than spread out over articles about the games themselves (the speedrunning of Mario 1, Mario 2, Mario Maker, etc. have more in common with each other than each has with the game). As perhaps the most popular series in the speedrunning community, it is among the most prominent examples in the scholarly literature about speedrunning and gets mainstream press coverage sufficient to justify a stand-alone article (whether a list or a topic page -- I tend to prefer the latter, but this list is fine material to start it with). We shouldn't just be mirroring speedrun.com, of course, but it's an acceptable primary source for records that also receive secondary source coverage. In addition to the very easy to find coverage in popular and video game press (search any video game website like Kotaku, Polygon, or even video game adjacent sites like Vice for "mario speedrunning" and find hundreds of hits covering all of the records on this list, the community, etc.) there's also more academic stuff like Journal of Posthuman Studies, Eludamos, Game Studies, and theses. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I see what you're saying, and that might be possible, but we shouldn't use this article as the base. There's already a section at List of video games notable for speedrunning#Super Mario series. The topic can be nurtured there and then split if it becomes unwieldy. This nom is asking if a "List of [...] records" copied from speedrun.com should be kept or not. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 23:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This nom is asking if a "List of [...] records" copied from speedrun.com should be kept or not Unless you're arguing for WP:TNT, the current state of the article isn't part of AfD. I see about 10 secondary sources already cited. The point is, most of these can be sourced to independent reliable sources. That many are currently only sourced to speedrun.com is a problem, but it's not a problem with the subject and isn't pervasive enough to merit TNT. Thanks for pointing out List of video games notable for speedrunning. A more in depth list of independent/secondary-sourced records would probably be undue there, and there's enough coverage that I don't see why we'd want to try to build it out there first when this page already exists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we'd want to try to build it out there first when this page already exists. Because this article is titled "List of records". I'm only advocating to delete this list of records. Even the prose in this article is just listing off record times. There is not enough content in the article beyond record times to warrant moving/redirecting to a different name and changing scope. If you want to try making a topical article that discusses glitch discovery, routing, techniques, history, community, notable runners, etc (you know, stuff RSs talk about), you are welcome to. That's a different scope. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 00:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 22:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Reviewing notability, its just speedrun.com. I think though, however, the speedrunning categories can go into their respective game articles, as it's a type of culture with popular impact, along the lines of an e-sport (maybe). This article is an index of what's on Speedrun.com, but it'd make sense in the other article, as its a culture. Can we put that to action for now?Le Panini (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Panini: The AfD process is supposed to consider what sources exist, not just which ones are in the article now (WP:NEXIST). Don't know that that would change your !vote, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I bet there are sources that talk about speedrunning or speedrunning Mario games in particular. If it is notable enough with proper citation, then it should stay, but if not, I think it make sense to have its own portion in its respective game. Le Panini (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic per Rhododendrites rationale. Lightburst (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went ahead and Google news sourced for this, and its something that gets reviewed a lot. https://nymag.com/speed/2016/12/super-mario-run-owes-its-record-popularity-to-the-speedrunner-community.html gives ample coverage to different speedrunners and their times. https://www.engadget.com/2017-10-23-super-mario-64-speedrun-record-cheese05-puncayshun-interview.html gives a whole article to a speedrunner for this game. A few others get brief mention at https://www.ft.com/content/12c385fa-3be1-11ea-b232-000f4477fbca Google news "Super Mario" "speedrunning" and plenty more results to search through. Searching for the names of people listed will also get results. Dream Focus 03:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Keep and Delete !votes are nearly equal, with some Merge !votes, is this AfD gonna close as No Consensus? Foxnpichu (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The delete votes were made before someone bothered to check and found coverage of the things on the list does exist. AFD is not a vote count. Dream Focus 16:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. That’s why I labelled them !votes. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be condescending, boss. No one is arguing that Mario speedrunning isn't notable or covered in RSs. It is. I agree there is potential for a Mario speedrunning article. However, the scope of this article is a "List of records". It's in the title. That's virtually all that's written about in the article. Even in prose, it's "This guy got this time, but then this guy got that time," without any context. This violates WP:NOTSTATS. The sources you are sharing would be great for a topical article which discusses the community, notable runners, glitches, techniques, etc. That's a different scope and should start fresh and not from reworking this stats dump. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 16:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A Mario speedrunning article would list the information there is now, including the stats, so be the same thing. Just a different name. This article is not just stats, it is plenty of other valid information. The created of the Mario games said he created Super Mario Run because of the speedrunners. Quite notable. Dream Focus 04:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A Mario speedrunning article would list the information there is now, including the stats, so be the same thing. No it would not because that's all sourced to Speedrun.com which is user-made / unpublished content and does not indicate notability.

This article is not just stats, it is plenty of other valid information. I wouldn't say plenty. It's slim pickings. Most of the prose is just listing record times sourced to Speedrun.com. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 13:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TarkusAB. While Super Mario speedrunning can be a notable topic, List of Super Mario speedrunning records would be a list of WP:TRIVIA that wouldn't have much value in Wikipedia. OceanHok (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have searched and found reliable sources as Dream Focus said. Northern Escapee (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is an excessive collection of trivia more suited for a speedrunning Wikia. I note that the article on Speedrun is already very long and crufty, so I think Wikipedia already covers all it needs to on this topic. Reyk _YO! 08:39, 5 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KeyRocket[edit]

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

I'm suggesting we delete this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KeyRocket because the product seems to be dead.

The 'official website' link now goes to a different site.

An internet search suggest the downloads are for outdated versions of Windows (XP/Vista/7); and have not been updated since 2012.

The revision history stops at 2015. Sadgrove (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sadgrove (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete KeyRocket, however, Sadgrove: you might want to reformat your nomination, you've nominated your user page SITH (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not claim to notability. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Have fixed, heading changed from "User:Sadgrove" to "KeyRocket" – Thjarkur (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while NBC News, Time (magazine), and PC World have mentioned of this software, nothing is in depth enough to satisfy notability requirements and are trivial passing mentions. ---TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:44, 5 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catedral (film)[edit]

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

Non notable documentary. A WP:BEFORE search turned up lots of hits for the subject of the documentary, but nothing substantial for the actual documentary. PROD was declined because it is an "award winner", but I found nothing to support that. Asking AfD to help. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:54, 17 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 has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 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 13:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no coverage in reliable secondary sources and no reviews, I can't see there being an alternative to deletion here Spiderone 14:44, 2 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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

City of Dreams (film)[edit]

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

Non notable documentary. Even the article has the following statement, "The film received no ratings and reviews from both IMDb and All Movie, which suggest the film failed to spark interest to the audience."

Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to support its notability. Citations are a list of books, which seem to be more like a "further reading" section on the topic rather than actual mentions of the film itself. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed some article text which related to the later film "Juarez City of Dreams" by Alex Tweddle rather than this one by Bruno Sorrentino. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Moving to the draft namespace to give it time to develop. Please do not move back without either going through WP:AFC or consulting myself (or another administrator or experienced editor). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Rand[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NMODEL or WP:NATHLETE, with no significant coverage online in reliable sources. The only secondary sources I can find are cited here: a photo of her in Vogue (in a list of models that didn't make it into a show), and a photo of her in Elle. Captain Calm (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here: Twitter. She became viral some weeks ago. Moreover, she has a huge following on social media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenlit91 (talk • contribs)

She is also featured here: The Cut (New York Magazine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenlit91 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article with photos of her in the Daily Mail: Daily Mail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenlit91 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A full editorial with her in Elle Italia: Elle Italia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenlit91 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. It sounds somewhat like a case of "sources are coming", so move to draft to see whether sources do develop within the next several months. BD2412 T 22:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, being posted on someone elses social media page that receives lots of likes does not contribute to wikinotableness (i note that Rand has (albeit in a week) under 1000 twitter followers), neither having instagram followers in the six figures. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The overall consensus is that this article does not belong in Wikipedia, as it appears to be a failed brand name for a generic fabric, without reliable-source coverage referring to it by this name. Enby has found some potentially promising sources referring to an identical or similar fabric which may support an article, but (a) the exact name of the fabric is not immediately obvious and (b) it would surprise me if anything in this article actually made it into a new version, completely unsourced as it is. I am absolutely happy to provide the content of this article in userspace/draftspace if Enby or anyone else does want to have a go at an "athletic mesh" type article, and thinks anything might be usable. ~ mazca ^talk 12:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dazzle (fabric)[edit]

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

I speedied this a couple of years ago. I discovered it when tidying List of fabrics, which I still revisit from time to time, and it should have gone then. A marketeers/spindoctors failed fabric name, the article still has no sources, and people who discover the wisegeek "article" will find it to be bereft of facts. This term, for what appears to be a type of "waffle" fabric, has never gained acceptance worldwide.

Listing here to avoid Project ARSehole removing another speedy. (Note:I'm not saying they removed it last time) Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was unable to find anyone describing this material, not even in ads, only some e-commerce listings. The WiseGeek source is a re-wording of our article. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and amend the templates linking to it. Nothing article worthy here. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Athletic mesh". Agreed on points above -- "dazzle" seems to be a failed marketing term and there are no good sources about it. How about renaming the article "Athletic mesh" and adding more info with sources? That seems to be the term it's sold under and I found a few books that include it. [24] [25] [26] I think it's distinct from waffle fabric which is raised and usually cotton while athletic mesh is flat and usually (always?) polyester. If we decide to keep, I'd be happy to add to the article, rename it, and amend the templates linking to it. I could get a photograph added too. Enby (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm not sure what "Project ARSehole" is, so for what it's worth, I don't think I'm a member. Enby (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources do not support "Athletic mesh" -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The links I included -- first two are reference guide sources, last one is just an example of the term it's sold under -- include and describe "athletic mesh", so I'm going to guess that's not the issue. If you're saying that the sources don’t use the word "dazzle" and equate it to "athletic mesh", I agree. I thought that the description in the article of "dazzle" ("Dazzle is a type of polyester fabric that is widely used in making clothes such as basketball uniforms [...] distinguished by the pattern of tiny holes") and descriptions in the books of "athletic mesh" ("Fabric name: Athletic mesh [...] This is classic basketball-jersey mesh, made with skipped stitches to create holes in the fabric") seemed to reference the same thing. I've now done a Google image search and see that most e-commerce listings of dazzle fabric show a visually slightly different material, often with "sports mesh" in the listing name. I had offered to upload a photo of athletic mesh which would clarify exactly what was being referenced in this article. If you're saying the reference guides aren't good quality sources, I'll mention that they were just what I found in a couple minutes of searching, but an interested editor may be able to find better ones. Since you overwrote your earlier comment I'll just say that again, my suggestion is to improve the article by renaming it "athletic mesh" and adding content about "athletic mesh" with sources, because "dazzle" is a fabric that is similar to or the same as "athletic mesh" but there are no good sources for "dazzle". I'm not interested in a scuffle and you don't seem interested in friendly discussion, so I'll respectfully not engage further. Enby (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tirana. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Tirana[edit]

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

Though the article claims to be a list, it constitutes a violation of WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY. Since most entries in the article contain external links, it also violates WP:LINKFARM, which states that Wikipedia must not host link repositories. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY doesn’t actually say anything about bibliographies. Meanwhile, we have an entire category for bibliographies. Mccapra (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is confusing. Although WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY doesn't specifically discuss bibliographies, the spirit of the rule appears to be that Wikipedia must not host collection of items unless they are intrinsically notable. It is interesting indeed that there exists a category for bibliographies but I would say that a large share of the entries in there aren't actually bibliographies: Brian Moore (novelist), 100 Books by August Derleth and Das deutsche Schrifttum über den Völkerbund are regular articles. I share your confusion, Mccapra, but I think pages like this ought be deleted if we want to stick to WP:NOT. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bibliographies is really for articles about bibliographies, but naturally some actual bibliographies have snuck past. However, I would say that is not relevant simply per WP:WAX. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into article on Tirana. This list was part of "further reading" until it was pulled out just a few days ago. Glendoremus (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Partial merge back to the main article, but the further reading should not be a link farm either. No indication that this is anything other than indiscriminate collection of articles that makes it an improvement for the reader. Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the article it came from seems the best solution, in my opinion.TH1980 (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Tirana. I have no idea where WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY came from, Wikipedia is filled with Bibliographies // Timothy :: talk 16:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 leans towards Keep (non-admin closure) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Common Framework Policies[edit]

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

Good faith article, and has useful information in it. But unfortunately not individually notable and can't see how this is encyclopaedic. Reads like a government whitepaper. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Single Market. Already a sentence in Brexit about the sourceable parts of this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Discussions for Common Framework Policies are still ongoing to accompany the U.K Internal Market Legislation, this is been done through the Fisheries and Agriculture Bills and non legislatively through Secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments) and Memorandums of Understanding.

ChefBear01 (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- This page has not passed NPP. I thought the rule was don't bite...
- Link 1 is a Bad Gateway
- Link 5 has an error in it; fixing the error leads to a subscription. Can't read the link.
- It is hard to understand some of the UK Government papers. The Blackstone Chambers link is a brilliant reference. A real explainer.
- In a sense this should be a simple explainer of EU legislative issues and UK subsequent legislation changes. This article points to this, and in this respect, and in respect to North Ireland border and customs issues for final port of destination for imports, the Common Frameworks for legislation for the Brexit, this is a needful article. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. Needs to be improved, but AFD is not cleanup. WP:Not paper and WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This individual appears to have been notable only in connection to a single event. Therefore, the consensus in this case hinges on whether or not his role in the event could be considered "highly significant" to a degree that warrants a standalone article on him. Several reliable sources were provided that mention Black Coyote and verify his role in the event. However, none of the sources provided in the discussion seem to discuss Black Coyote in any lengthy or significant way that would imply that his role in Wounded Knee was so profoundly important that it requires a standalone article to discuss it. This, of course, doesn't mean that Black Coyote and his role at Wounded Knee can't be included anywhere in Wikipedia. Indeed, descriptions of his role in the event already appear in Wounded Knee and could easily be expanded without causing the main article to become too lengthy. Therefore, the argument to delete is significantly more convincing. No prejudice against recreating the article as a redirect, if desired. ‑Scottywong | [communicate] || 06:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Coyote[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. The article suggests this person is notable for one event. This source describes a Black Coyote chief, but little biographic details are provided. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with the nominator that the subject fails WP:BASIC. The coverage in the sources provided (at least those I could open) is not substantial and the subject is only mentioned in passing. Overall, it looks like the subject clearly falls within WP:SINGLEEVENT. From the source provided by the nom it emerges the subject did play a role in starting the Wounded Knee Massacre. There should not be a stand-alone article on him but I would think that a redirect to Wounded Knee Massacre is in order. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the below discussion, I think I should restate my original position. It is beyond doubt the massacre was a very significant event and that Black Coyote played a large part in it. Given that the sources say nothing about him except that he triggered the massacre, I think it would be against the spirit of WP:1E to have a stand-alone article on him. I simply fail to see why a likely stub must be retained when his role could be done justice within the event's article. Therefore, my view is still redirect or merge. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:1E which states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.". Andrew🐉(talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E also states there must be "large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role". Would you be able to list some of these? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books search "Black Coyote" "wounded knee". There are so many books with so many hits I figured it would be considered ref bombing. -- GreenC 20:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could be merged, but I think that having a separate subpage in this case is good, simply for the reasons of readability and a better separation of material. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a noteable historic figure and pivotal in an important event. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can only view one of the sources, the others come up with 404 errors. The one source I can view is one line.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:SINGLEEVENT. There is no reason to believe that WP:BASIC is met on the sources cited. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect Clear BLP1E failure, lacks any biographical details beyond the incident that is already described in the main event article. "The individual's role" is not such "a large one" that a separate page is warranted since not only is there no further information beyond the event his role was just the accidental discharge of a rifle among so many people involved! Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His role in this "one event" was significant. https://www.britannica.com/event/Wounded-Knee-Massacre The massacre was the climax of the U.S. Army’s late 19th-century efforts to repress the Plains Indians. It broke any organized resistance to reservation life and assimilation to white American culture. So his role in this is quite significant, he caused them to open fire, otherwise this never would've happened. Dream Focus 05:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons listed above. oncamera 05:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - important historical figure who played an important role during the Plains wars. Can it be improved, yes. Is that a reason for deletion, no. Netherzone (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he passes notability and there are sources to back it up. Important role in bringing about an important event. The article is all sourced now except for one passage that could go, in my opinion, if it can't be cited. We have at least one other article on someone who brought about a massacre--see Edward Garrick. I don't know how the nominator and others missed sources in Google Books and elsewhere. Not fine WP:BEFORE work, but then so many American Indian articles were nominated in such a short time that they may have been overlooked. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39: What are you talking about "Not fine WP:BEFORE work". Go to the article and look at the eight source cited. Of the ones that aren't dead links, hidden behind a NYT paywall, or redirects to finding aids, Black Coyote is mentioned in just TWO sources. Behold:

Here, where his name is mentioned twice. That's it.
Here, where all that's written about Black Coyote is:

"Turning Hawk said that Black Coyote 'was a crazy man, a young man of very bad influence and in fact a nobody.' He said that Black Coyote fired his gun and that 'immediately the soldiers returned fire and indiscriminate killing followed.'"

and

"The troopers found only two rifles, one of them a new Winchester belong to a young Minneconjou named Black Coyote. Black Coyote raised the Winchester above his head, shouting that he paid much money for the rifle and that it belonged to him. Some years afterward Dewey Beard recalled that Black Coyote was deaf. 'If they had left him alone he was going to put his gun down where he should. They grabbed him and spinned him in the east direction. He was still unconcerned even then. He hadn’t his gun pointed at anyone. His intention was to put that gun down. They came on and grabbed the gun that he was going to put down. Right after they spun him around there was the report of a gun, was quite loud. I couldn’t say that anyone was shot, but following that was a crash.'"

Even the source calls him "a nobody". Magnolia677 (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677:, I can respond more fully later today or tomorrow, but some non-sequential notes for you:

Remember that it's not the state of sourcing in the article that matters but the sources in existence. "Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources" is not a problem I encountered. That was part of your nomination statement and that's what my comment was about.
The paywall comment is moot because you can't discount a source just because you can't read it. If you really want to read it, get Wikipedia library access or investigate local library options. Papers gotta stay in business.
The citations to books that talk about what films Black Coyote is portrayed in were added to verify statements in the article, not to prove notability. Not everything in an article has to prove notability.
Regarding your issues with the many other sources, I can review them line by line later, but I'm afraid I have my work cut out for me with the other 12 or so active AfDs on American Indians. Oh for a few extra hours in each day this week! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia, that the NYT is behind a paywall is irrelevant. WP:RSP states that the NYT is a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have an NYT subscription. The article "Army Denies a Wounded Knee Massacre" says: "On Dec. 29, the Indians encamped at Wounded Knee Creek were requested to turn in their arms. When only a few were handed over, a search of the tepees was ordered. According to most sources, the first shot was fired by Black Coyote, later described by another Indian, Turning Hawk, as “a crazy man, a young man of very bad influence and in fact nobody.”" That's the only reference to Black Coyote in that article. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which supports what I wrote in my nomination; this person is notable for one event. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the one event guideline, "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles". We may not agree on whether he was a major or minor participant, but bringing about Wounded Knee is a sufficiently important event. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt we would also not agree on the word "may". Magnolia677 (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677, you use that "one event" argument a lot. If a soldier fights a battle and performs heroically in that battle and receives an award, returns home and lives the rest of his life in relative obscurity, does that one event get him an article here on Wikipedia? If you say no then I better see you nominate a good portion of most "Medal of Honor" award winners for deletion because they are notable for one event, otherwise just good soldiers doing their duty. Of course you won't do that, only nominate articles about American Indians you subjectively deem unworthy of an article. Since you brought it up, the part where he is called a "nobody" actually lends more credence to him being a "somebody" because he is the direct cause for the massacre. I find it so hilarious that had Black Coyote been a mass murderer he would have had an in-depth Wikipedia article detailing his entire life, especially if he were European or White.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus of editors have agreed that recipients of a nation's highest award are presumed notable. I didn't see anything in the article about Black Coyote being in this situation. As well, a consensus of editors have agreed that individuals notable for only one event are typically not notable. Wikipedia has its own unique rules. This isn't Facebook. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't insult you like you keep doing to me on these various articles. I will say that I don't Facebook so I wouldn't know how they do things there. You say that one event does not make a person notable and yet there are individuals with articles on Wikipedia who are only known for one event. Your use of the word, typically, denotes a subjective opinion that allows bias to enter the equation, whether malicious or not. Either they all are or they all aren't, right? I mean I've seen that argument used against these articles. He was the focal point that initiated the massacre and has more than one source provided. Had he just been another person present he wouldn't have had an article written about him.Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin if this is looking like a delete, please wait another week to close as I'm gathering sources for the subject and others from my local library. Thanks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This man's critical role in a historic event is obvious. But quite frankly I'm not seeing any reason why this shouldn't just be merged with the massacre article. All we know of him is what he did at the beginning of the incident; no personal details, no biography other than what he did during the attempted disarmament, which is already described on the massacre article page. If we had more detail about him I'd see a better case for support. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to Wounded Knee Massacre - we don't have enough in-depth sources to support a biography article; we don't know anything about the subject outside of his role at WKM. The reader will be better served reading about Black Coyote at the WKM article. Le v!v ich 20:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His role in this "one event" was significant. The massacre was the climax of the U.S. Army’s late 19th-century efforts to repress the Plains Indians. Notable historic figure. Can it be improved. Lightburst (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a definite keep because of his role in initiating one of the worst recorded massacres of an indigenous tribe in the US. Even the comments made denoting how he is a "nobody and crazy person" adds to his notability because it is published and because of his role. We have articles to mass shooters/murderers whose only "claim" to notability is their "one" event. Passes notability guidelines.Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tsistunagiska: The reason for that is because the media will then often produce lots of material on said mass shooters and then we've amassed so much biographical material on them that it's logical to split the article for one on the mass shooting and the other on the mass shooter. Everything on this article already does or should be included on the WKM article. This article is a redundancy. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: "A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic" per WP:Notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:49, 3 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. ‑Scottywong | [spill the beans] || 06:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aventus Protocol[edit]

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

notability not established, this project was covered only on launch in reputable media while blockchain was really hyped (2015). the project has stalled, notice how e.g. the documentation on the website is "coming soon", 5 years after launch. this is yet another blockchain vaporware product that was never notable in the first place, and was only covered in reputable media because of the hype. "the times of london" covered this because it is a london-based project. "imperial college london" is also biased, because that is where the founders met. this could be a list item in a list of defunct blockchain applications. Ysangkok (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Times already in the article. These aren't London publications they're national even international publications, "The Times of London" is just a name, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 11 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]

@Atlantic306: how is the coverage from The Guardian "in depth" as required by WP:CORPDEPTH? They don't explain anything about how it works, and they hint at invalid implications like "The Aventus Protocol is based on blockchain technology – used in cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin – which would allow event organisers to give each ticket a unique identity that is tied to its owner. Because the tickets are based on blockchain – a linked list of records where each new one contains an encrypted version of the previous one – they cannot be faked."

Blockchain does not need encryption, that is the first problem with that snippet. Another problem is that it sounds like you can't guarantee authenticity of a ticket without blockchain, also false. Also, it sounds like blockchain is the only way to assign "a unique identity" to an owner, neglecting to mention that it is asymmetric cryptography makes that possible.

The rest of the article is useless propping up like mentioning their credentials. This is not what you'd call in-depth, I think. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, it is significant coverage about how the company was created and we don't need to know the details of how it works as "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide". Your disagreement with the technical aspects reported does not change the fact that it is a reliable source and they do make corrections so I suggest you contact the Guardian with your concerns, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Atlantic306. It has received some coverage on the internet. It's also discussed in a portion of a book. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm generally sympathetic to the delete rationale. Underdocumented blockchain enterprises are a hygiene risk for Wikipedia and I'm generally minded to give them a higher bar to pass at AfD, and the three newspaper stories all relate to the launch of the company and so they do not provide a basis for a balanced article. The offering at their Github page is slight, much slighter than one would expect for an organisation that has had four years and over 20 million UKP to work with [27]. That said, I did find two later academic articles that mention the protocol [28] [29], so it is possible that something more substantial can be said. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. Charles Stewart's findings are also encouraging. To the noms initial points, WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficiently wide coverage for the topic. I don't think the coverage in reliable sources gives us a basis for balanced coverage of this topic, and I'm especially bothered by this when it comes to the space of topics that might be subject to blockchain enterprise boosterism. The coverage in the 3 (PR depth) newspaper articles and 2 (more interesting) academic articles attests that the general application domain, new ticketing technologies, is interesting, but in the absence of more meaty coverage, I think we are better off without this content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this meets NCORP. (t · c) buidhe 13:01, 4 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. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 06:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utair Flight 595[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. I would have redirected to a list article, but I do not believe it is notable enough for inclusion even on a list. Was contested because the article's creator does not think I know enough about aviation history (which may be true, although I was a fighter pilot), but that is irrelevant, since the deletion discussion is simply based on the merits, or lack thereof, of the notability of this particular accident, which resulted in zero deaths, and zero property damage (except for minor damage to the aircraft). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [30]. If this was really a non-notable plane crash, why do some many people want to read about it?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I will remain neutral, as I have removed a CSD template on the article, unrelated to notability. I disagree with the assertion that the numbers shown above show a clear and marked interest in the topic, or that interest in a topic along confers notability. Notability on Wikipedia exists as a concept separate from topic interest. Acebulf (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an airliner was written off. A lack of deaths ≠ a lack of notability. Sure, the article needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as WP:NOTNEWS, and does not meet WP:EVENT, no lasting major consequences, affect to a large geographical area, nor significant non-routine coverage over a period of time. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS and this seemingly not having any impact either during or after the accident. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS insignificant accident. Russia’s Federal Investigative Committee have not released their report, so it shall remain insignificant. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm leaning on Delete but cannot make my mind up. There are various similar articles about airliners totalled on landing without fatalities, and they should in theory follow the same fate as this article, either way it goes. See Air Canada Flight 624, Ryanair Flight 4102 and probably others. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deeday-UK, I agree on the other articles as well. Either we change the parameters of WP:NOTNEWS, or those others should also be discussed for deletion, since neither has had lasting impact. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Wind Jet Flight 243, another of such accidents, had its own article, but instead it's a redirect to Wind Jet, where the event is briefly covered, which I believe is the most sensible thing for all such cases. Therefore, I vote for:

Merge into Utair per my comment above, and keep this as redirect, since it's still a meaningful search term. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A couple of extra references from Flight International here and here, with this article, although not mentioning this accident specifically, suggests that Russian airlines, including Utair, may have a problem with landing mishaps.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Draft:Lunarsolar. ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] || 20:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lunarsolar[edit]

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

Not meet general notability guideline. Bill Cipher, Stan, Twins, Dipper - Gravity falls and J.Smile 14:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The order of the EZIC star - V.A.V.I 😍😍 (J = J. Smile 💚💚💚) 14:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No evidence of notability per WP:NBAND. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Um, there appear to be an abundance of sources in Korean listed in the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: This artist will most likely be in Gaon's September Album Chart and will pass notabilty in about three weeks. Abdotorg (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The group has already charted on Gaon's weekly album charts. I have updated the article to reflect that. Nangears (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I don't think a single debut album or song charting on low level chart warrants an article for every musician out there. Especially when their article is essentially just an album or song listing. Wikipedia isn't a directory and biographical articles require biographical details. I'm fine with it being drafted and recreated when (or if) there's more information about them. Plus more of their material gets released and recognized. At this point though for all we know they could be a one hit wonder and never get more coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft They're already the second highest charting 2020 rookie group on Bugs (they peaked twice btw, and the highest of those peaks was #18) which even beats out groups like Treasure, Weeekly and Cravity, Not to mention that on Bugs they stayed in the charts for 26 hours (which is the longest for any 2020 rookie gg!) and re-entered two times after that btw, their single album has sold a total of 2.5k copies on Hanteo (and is growing much more everyday), they have a total of 3,819,819 views on their music video (both channels combined), they charted at #979 on the MelOn daily chart (which doesn't seem high but they're one of the only 3 female rookies to chart on the MelOn daily chart along with Weeekly and Natty.) This is proof that they have surpassed most of their peers and are on level with few rookie groups this year, also they've surpassed many of their seniors. There is groups who have debuted this year with way less success than LUNARSOLAR, but I don't see their notability being questioned. --Webabez (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft until they generate more notability and independent reviews. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:MUSIC: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Lenoresm (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion had been closed by the nominator, so I have undone the close per WP:BADNAC. No !vote at this time on the article itself. --Finngall ^talk 15:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Sweat and Wars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable unreleased film, per WP:NFF, film has not had a notable production, and there is no evidence that will have an imminent release BOVINEBOY2008 09:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom, WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. I am somewhat intrigued that the previous AfD closed as "keep". As the majority of the coverage which was relied upon for the "keep" arguments were based on what appear to be trivial passing mentions ([31][32][33][34]), ROTM industry coverage of production activity ([35]) and local coverage of the producers' failed(?) attempts to find funding to complete the project ([36]). The latter, apparently, being primarily what the subject is notable for. I would note that there is some local coverage of this type also relating to the questions being raised about the project ever being completed. And the reasons for that. But I wonder whether this type of coverage is more down to the promoter's marketing skills, than to any actual/inherent notability. In any event, I don't see how the WP:CRYSTAL or WP:NFILM guidelines provider for articles on otherwise ROTM unfinished and unreleased films... Guliolopez (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the film is not yet notable and largely hypothetical. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SKULL (DC Comics)[edit]

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

This was initially prodded by User:TTN with "fils WP:GNG." and then deprodded by User:Toughpigs who added a new reference. Sadly, the article is still pure WP:PLOT summary + list of apparances, and has no reception section or similar, and no source I can see contains anything that is non-plot and in-depth, in other words, "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. " I couldn't think of any valid redirect for this, neither. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 25 September 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} 09:31, 25 September 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} 09:31, 25 September 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} 09:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic still fails WP:GNG. Encyclopedias of in-universe facts are useless outside of sourcing something for which you do not know the corresponding primary source. They otherwise add absolutely no unique commentary, so they do not count as significant coverage. TTN (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the groups leader, Atomic Skull, is somewhat notable, this rather obscure group that he led for a brief time is not. There is one secondary source being used, but not only is the information its being used to support simple plot information, it is also the only secondary source present, and topics generally need to have multiple reliable, secondary sources in order to pass the WP:GNG. Searching for any additional coverage in reliable sources did not turn up anything. Rorshacma (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article fails WP:GNG, with serious fancruft going on. Agree with the in-universe facts not really adding up to any notability of any sort. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything noteworthy into Atomic Skull, then Delete. Dark knight 2149 07:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7 Inch Curve[edit]

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

per WP:NFF, it appears that this film has not released despite being in production in 2015, and it's production is not particularly notable, very WP:ROUTINE coverage BOVINEBOY2008 09:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unreleased film lacking significant coverage in reliable sources so therefore not passing WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the coverage required for an unreleased film to have an article here Spiderone 16:43, 2 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 13:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communal councils of Luxembourg[edit]

Communal councils of Luxembourg – (View AfD)

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

The partisan makeup in tiny municipalities of Luxembourg are simply not worthy of standalone articles. As a section it would be more than welcome in the municipality articles, however. Some municipalities actually have updated govt/politics sections, and then redirect is the option to get rid of these articles. Now, in these communal council articles the information in them is so severely outdated that merge is not an option, so for municipalities without govt/politics sections we just have to delete the council article.

Geschichte (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to collect all known information. There is nothing notable about this level of organization justifying these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The information found here would have been (when the articles were created) better placed in the articles about the communes themselves. But most of the information here is outdated; all the articles I have looked at reflect the results of elections held in 2005. These communes apparently hold local elections every six years, so two elections have gone by with no update to the articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete all per nom. These communities are far too small for us to support separate council articles Reywas92^Talk 06:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techgentsia[edit]

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

Company does not pass WP:NCORP- their product (Vconsol) has not been released. 1292simon (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the mentions in the press are publicity-engineered. Company seems NN and the article an attempt to overcome that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sources popped up during COVID-19 lockdown, and i can't see any independent reliable source before the lockdown was imposed that insisted media to cover news about the company in question. Added sources determine its luck not notability. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Samii[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a medical doctor. While this doctor does seem to have won numerous awards, he does not seem to have been the subject of significant coverage from independent secondary sources. He has been mentioned in Tehran Times, however this should not be considered a reliable source. Salimfadhley (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you look here [37] you will see that this doctor is actually a professor too. Per WP:NACADEMIC if he has won a prestigious academic award at the national or international level, he is notable for inclusion. I'm unsure if these awards are prestigious enough though. He won the highly notable Friendship Award in China though, but that is not an academic award. Scorpions13256 (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The doctor is president of many neurobiological organisations and related organisations. I was unable to find any listing of the Tehran Times as an unreliable source, as per WP:RSP --Whiteguru (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be significant just looking at what he is presiding over. He is also covered by the press quite a bit: [38][39][40][41]. He is famous enough that spoofs of him are covered: [42]. Also quite a few google book hits.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw consensus seems clear. Thanks for participating. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waluscha De Sousa[edit]

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

Came across this page and it seems that the depicted actor/model is not notable. Seems to have only done one film which fails guidelines of WP:NACTOR. furthermore all coverage is about whom she is cast with or who she is linked to, lacks WP:INDY/in-depth coverage. As a model she is not notable too with no big campaigns. Her debut film Fan (film) had her at best as a supporting role or just a side role. With only one released film she fails WP:NACTOR Correct me if I am wrong but she does not qualify for a page on wiki. Tw123456 (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article will pass WP:BASIC [43], plus a lot of smaller mentions which would pass based on "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". NACTOR she would pass as a model, her cover shoots would qualify as "Has had significant roles in multiple notable ... productions". // Timothy :: talk 22:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TimothyBlue. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 12:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] || 20:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ela Mino[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable beauty pageant contestant. Prodded, which has been contested. Should have A4'd it, since it was AfD'd a few years ago. Nothing has changed since that discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep per WP:GNG. She has substantial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Coverage is from multiple countries in multiple languages. None of this coverage was included in first version of article that was deleted. Also, she did win an international beauty pageant, beating other national representatives from around the world. --Rob (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources contain significant coverage about the subject herself, just trivial/incidental coverage of events etc. Couldn't turn up anything else in a WP:BEFORE search. Doesn't meet the GNG. -M.Nelson (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- By what definition of "trivial"? There are multiple non-trivial sources. Harper's Bazaar Vietnam is clearly non-trivial. Also, she did win an international pageant. This is wasn't just some local or regional pageant. It wasn't a "virtual" or "on-line-only" pageant (countless such pageants). After she won a local title, she won a a separate national title later on, then she went on to represent Canada, and win an international title, which is what makes her notable. While she does meet GNG, she doesn't actually need it for inclusion, since she's actually achieved something sufficiently importance. But of course, she does meet GNG. She actually has coverage in different countries. Coverage isn't just the "local person does something" that any pageant contestant might get. The coverage is about an actual achievement of the person. If you combine winning an international in-person pageant with a international coverage, you've set a pretty high bar, very very few pageant contestants can meet. I fully understand not wanting to give a bio of every contestant or every winner of a local pageant, with the standard coverage that goes with that (often those warrant a redirect, if covered at all). But, that isn't what this article is. As in sports, if somebody achieves a sufficient level of success we tend to keep the article, even if much of the coverage is connected to events (as in, person won something notable at major event). We don't demand internationally successful athletes to have lots of non-sports related coverage. --Rob (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Thivierr: - I'll admit I did miss Harper's Bazaar Vietnam, that is a fairly substantial piece of coverage. Thank you for raising that. Are there two other sources about Ela Mino, to meet WP:THREE? All of the other sources in the article that I've looked up are simply trivial mentions of Ela Mino, not significant coverage. They don't go into depth about her - they cover some event or subject and mention her in passing.
  Whether she won multiple international pageants doesn't automatically grant notability, but it suggests that there ought to be enough coverage out there to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. But if the coverage doesn't exist, the subject isn't notable, regardless of their accomplishments. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @M.nelson: I don't understand what you're talking about regarding "events". Discussing an event which she *won* is not a trivial mention in passing. Generally, coverage of her is about pageant events, in the same way coverage of most Olympic athletes is about sporting events. If you go to the typical Olympic athlete bio, you'll find all independent sources mainly discuss various events, as in the different sporting events that were competed and won in. Articles on them are made almost always, and almost always kept, because of the stature of the event. You could delete 90% of such articles based on the argument that they're just mentioned in context of an event, and there's little non-sports-event coverage. Just take a peak at the 100% blue links at Canada at the 2014 Winter Olympics for a small fraction of examples (most having little more than event results). We're not talking about a bunch of articles nobody got around to nominating. We're talking about articles that could never and would never be deleted by AFD (and would be speedy kept by consensus), despite not meeting you're version of WP:THREE (which is a meaningless essay). In many areas, not just sports, certain levels of achievement, when properly covered, are sufficient for inclusion. You're use of GNG is really more appropriate when somebody has no particular notable achievement, but has gained an exceptional level of coverage for something normally not considered that significant (e.g. famous for being famous). P.S. I'm not equating pageantry for the Olympics, which is why I won't be making an article on anybody who finishes last, as I have for the Olympics. --Rob (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic example of BLP:ONE EVENT. and NOT TABLOID. That criterion, of course, does not apply if the event is sufficiently notable, but this is not one of the Big Four international beauty pageants which would make a national winner notable . DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article did not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.--Richie Campbell (talk) 15:19, 5 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 13:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melionica bertha[edit]

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

This article does not appear to be significant enough and there does not appear to be enough sources on the internet to justify it having its own Wikipedia page. Phanachet (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Phanachet (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Phanachet (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know the guideline/policy offhand, but I am practically certain that if this is a genuine species, it will be kept. Is the nom's contention that this is not a genuine species? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Mccapra (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a species, with untold living organisms through the ages. Of course it is notable. Pikavoom (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a "finding out about WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES" stumble. Early closure / withdrawal suggested. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Straightforward case of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. There's no way this article could ever be deleted with current sourcing establishing the species exists and is formally described. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Sorry, but I think it’s time to withdraw this AfD. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Chandra[edit]

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

This actor has played the lead role in one unnotable minor film. No sources cover him in depth. He has played small roles in a few films. Created by a paid and blocked user. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added new Tamil sources which provide wide coverage. Has appeared in the lead role in 3+ films, meeting WP:NACTOR. Neutral Fan (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Most of the listed sources are either primary (first person interviews), unreliable or movie reviews. Only passing mentions. Nothing substantial to indicate that he is a notable actor. Fails GNG and NACTOR. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 05:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, there is only one movie. This is Wp:TOOSOON. Of the references, first is good, several are non-translatable - javascript right click restricted; one is a security risk, so not investigated. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whiteguru. He's had very shallow coverage because he's so new to acting. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. Wm335td (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Ekezie-Joseph[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kennedy Ekezie-Joseph

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

Notability not sufficient (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people))

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 23:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO as a confirmed recipient of a Queen's Young Leader Award ([44]). This seems like a substantial and selective honour; there are maybe 50–60 recipients in the world every year. Not a Nobel Prize, but it's definitely something. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Admittedly, the Queen's Young Leader Award is something, but I don't think it's enough to meet ANYBIO. ANYBIO, to me, implies a much higher award like the Victoria Cross. I'd expect a recipient of that award to pass GNG as well, which it doesn't seem this individual does. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further comment on whether the award is sufficient for notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 05:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I agree with Eddie's reasoning on this one. One really needs Nobel or similar to be notable on the basis of a single award (t · c) buidhe 13:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wolk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Social entrepreneur who fails WP:BASIC. The best I could do by way of coverage is [45], a passing mention in the NYT; [46] (interview in the Boston Globe, which is local coverage for a Boston-based exec); and [47] (decent, but very local). His best claim to notability is being the CEO of a non-notable nonprofit. Previous AfD closed as no consensus in 2008, and a lot has changed since then. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable founder of a non-profit organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Zoozaz1 talk 18:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tuctuc Ltd[edit]

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

This is the page for a short-lived commercial project. It definitely existed, but I can't find sufficient coverage to meet WP:NORG. As an alternative to deletion, the page could conceivably be redirected to Transport in Brighton and Hove#Auto rickshaws, which already exists as a discrete paragraph about the business. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Sure, the sources I found are not that great, but in additional to local coverage in Brighton, I do find some more than routine coverage of the company in reputable outlets in the UK: 1, 2, 3 etc. There is also news reporting on the company in India where rickshaws were imported from: 4, and case study of the company: 5. Taken all of this together, while the sourcing isn't that great and the article must definitely be improved if kept, I am convinced this company is more than a mere run-of-the-mill entity and barely passes the WP:NCORP threshold. Dps04 (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a paragraph in Collis (2011), The New Encyclopaedia of Brighton. I will make some edits to the article now and see where it goes from there. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now expanded the article as far as possible with available sources (diff). If "Delete" is the outcome, please could this be transferred into my userspace (into a sandbox or whatever) so I can look for more sources; I have a feeling there may be more out there. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article was in a parlous state when nominated, now thanks to Dps04 and Hassocks5489 it's looking MUCH better. Mujinga (talk) 09:34, 1 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donia, Missouri[edit]

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

All signs point to it being an old post office, not a town. State historical society calls it a post office. It doesn't appear on the topos until after it was entered into GNIS, but once it does start appearing, even the topos call it a post office, either by marking it with a box with the letters PO or by calling it Donia Post Office. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge with township.72.49.7.25 (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To the IP, which township would it be, anyway? Geschichte (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Post office does not imply a community and no other evidence indicates presence of one. Does not meet basic threshold for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Paul Eyewear[edit]

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

promotional article for non-notable company. The references are almost all mere press releases or mentions (I cannot access the WSJ one) The "Inc.'s 21 coolest products of 2019" is a publicity gimmick, and isn't a reliable source for anything, let alone notability. The contents too is what would be expected of a press release, complete with cute origin story. Written by a declared paid editor, and sounds it. Additional evidence, as if any were needed why the natural tendency of paid editors is to write publicity. AfC is not a sufficient screen, if it passes contents like this. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source that might be useful is the WSJ which I also can’t see, but on its own that would not be enough for a keep. Mccapra (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I have crawled through all the sources, and some are interviews. Others are decent articles about protective eyewear for children, esp. sunglasses and blue light blockers for kids. This is going to become a big issue for children with too much screen time and resulting behavioural disturbances. More to come on this issue. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing you've said above has any relationship to our criteria for establishing notability. Please read WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typical product of paid editing, fails WP:NCORP. Let's look at the sources: [48] lightweight interview with founders, mostly cute clips of the kid playing with toys with very litte info on the company, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH; [49] - dodgy blog that allows anyone to "become a contributor"; [50] - brief mention of one of their products in "the x best holiday gifts" listing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH; [51][52] more promo interviews with the parents in local news; [53] affiliate marketing spam blog; [54] brief mention of product in top ten list; [55] company's own website. I have access to the WSJ article via ProQuest and it's more of the same: a 241 word blurb based mainly on quotes from the father. It does not even have a byline. In short there is nothing to indicate encyclopedic notability here, merely evidence that they have a good PR team. Spicy (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above, none of the references meet the criteria. Also I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting video at today.com but does not meet notability and the sources are cobbled together trying to "pass" our evaluation. Edit pattern is strongly indicative of public relations firm editing. Graywalls (talk) 09:58, 2 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 Pittsburgh Cultural Trust. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Dance Council[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:AUD. Nearly all the coverage I found was local to Pittsburgh. Delete is weak because of [56] (in the Herald-Star, an Ohio newspaper), which suggests that they get at least some performers from outside the US—a hint at broader notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Steubenville, Ohio, which is where the Herald-Star is based, is often considered part of the same metro as Pittsburgh. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:47, 5 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 20:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Draftify. If we delete this, it will only come back. The website is somewhat professional, and as this is an offshoot of the Pittsburg Cultural Trust (which has a lot of history and substance) - this article needs the same substance. There should be more information given on the cultural offerings and performances undertaken since 2001-2002 season. What is missing here is some serious coverage of the Dance Council and its works. Instead we get a list. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 05:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pittsburgh Cultural Trust . The article as it stands is thoroughly unencyclopedic , as we do not reprint concert programs, and there is otherwise insufficient material. Adding programs for additional years will not improve it. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC) .[reply]
Redirect to Pittsburgh Cultural Trust. Wm335td (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Z (monster truck driver)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The best source remains the one found in the 2008 AfD [57], which is a WP:INTERVIEW in a local low-circulation/impact newspaper (Birmingham Mail). I am afraid this is not enough to warrant having an article about him. Can anyone find anything better? If not, redirect to Monster Mutt, I guess? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 17 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 keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2008-11 ✓ keep

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (t · c) buidhe 13:05, 4 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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Ibiyemi (Publisher)[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. Not be confused with Samuel Ibiyemi. Most of the sources aren't reliable, and some of the sources are non-independent. Subject fails WP:JOURNALIST. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 09:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject is a notable politician who ran for governor of Nigeria's State of Osun in 2018. The nominator of this article for deletion did not appear to have carried out a careful review of the sources cited in the article before proceeding in haste to tag them as "Most of the sources aren't reliable, and some of the sources are non-independent". The most credible and independent newspapers in Nigeria such as The Punch, This Day, Vanguard, Leadership among others are cited in this article.

The media coverage of his campaign were significant as can be seen in this few instances

[[58]], [[59]], [[60]] and [[61]]. It is important to state here that political campaigns receive this pattern of media coverage and this should not be interpreted to mean 'not independent'. Penafresh (Talk) 7:08, 23 September 2020 UTC

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don’t keep articles on candidates for office unless they’re elected, or unless they are already notable before the election. Neither seems to be the case here. Mccapra (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. scope_creep^Talk 09:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. 1292simon (talk) 08:46, 2 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 13:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point Reyes (former settlement), California[edit]

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

Durham defines it as the site of a post office on the Point Reyes peninsula that existed at different times at different ranches. Initially established in 1891 at "F" Ranch, moved in 1919 to "D" Ranch, then moved to Point Reyes lighthouse in 1942 and discontinued in 1948. None of these sites were ever a settlement. Not to be confused with Point Reyes Station which was a settlement and has a Wiki article. Glendoremus (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. More GNIS crap, at least the Durham source explains what this actually was. Clearly just a post office. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GEOLAND. Or Redirect to Point Reyes Station, California. KidAd talk 00:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GEOLAND. This article is really weak compared to the other articles for Municipalities and communities of Marin County, California, United States. I hit a goodly sample to compare, this one is weak, weak, weak. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McKim[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found some coverage on Newspapers.com: a 1984 article ("New Jersey comedian was once a crayon") from the Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal, and a 1989 article ("The Indian word for 'industrial park") and 2005 article ("SJ Faces: Traci Skeene and Brian McKim") from the Camden Courier-Post. It's not much, but it provides some evidence for notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [spout] || 04:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Char Avell[edit]

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

This article uses youtube videos, streaming sites and some other trivial mentions as references. I think these are not WP:RS. This article should be deleted.UserNumber (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.UserNumber (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.UserNumber (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.UserNumber (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of our defined notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Eastern Eye and BBC Asian Network already referenced in the article, so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sources are both primary source interviews with the artist, so not independent. Richard3120 (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 6 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 14:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [gossip] || 04:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSINGER per lack of significant coverage in independent sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Full disclosure: per this edit, the nominator has pinged me, presumably to canvas me to contribute to the discussion. This is prohibited as set out at AfD#Wikietiquette. I am therefore recusing myself from this discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Doesn't meet WP:MUS. BJackJS (talk) 14:09, 2 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. Additional sources have been found; hopefully they will now be added to the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikke Nurjanah[edit]

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

does not seem notable. Only references are to imdb and Instagram, which are generally considered unreliable. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~ Amkgp 💬 09:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be built on reliable sources not Instagram and IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Consider me undecided on deletion, but this singer has been around since the 1980s ~~and her country uses a distinct alphabet with diacritical marks, so a basic search for the version of her name as given in the article may not lead to valid results~~. All of her results in a basic search are weak social media links, though she does come up several times in a Google Books search. She has been mentioned in several books on the history of pop music in Indonesia. Those tend to be brief listings, but once again those books are in English for a generalized audience. It is possible that someone proficient in the local language could raise some reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Indonesian alphabet is a merely simplified Latin alphabet, no diacritical marks whatsoever (or did you have Vietnamese in mind?). --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I reached an incorrect conclusion after reading the Indonesian language article here. So I retracted comments about the alphabet but I think the point on non-English sources remains valid. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the biograpgy is verified when it is verified with IMDb but it should have more information. Author Sanju (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that IMDb could be used to confirm a movie's existence, but it is not a reliable indicator of the notability of any person in such a movie. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective referencing. scope_creep^Talk 18:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I searched online and found many sources, but am unsure about their reliability. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I looked at Indonesian Wikipedia she appears to have won a number of awards over a period of time (no souring unfortunately). I also found this article that states she was invited to give a guest lecture at Pittsburgh University. She gets coverage in Tempo articles. As noted above she appears in a Google Books search. I agree with Doomsdayer520 that if we have more local sources and someone with knowledge of the language, we'd find more. I think AleatoryPonderings might be able to find more if they exist. // Timothy :: talk 21:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with mentions as a pioneer of dangdut in scholarly works like [62] and [63], a search of ProQuest shows that she gets plenty of coverage in English-language Indonesian media such as the Jakarta Post. She also won an award at the 1997 Anugerah Musik Indonesia Awards. (I take TimothyBlue's ping as a friendly challenge, and not as inappropriate WP:CANVASSing :)) Would also note that there are corresponding articles in eight other Wikipedias. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above such as the Jakarta Post, scholarly sources and reliable books so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed above, meets WP:GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [speak] || 04:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note The article still do not have any WP:RS or discuss about the person. As per current version, it consists only list of works. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of coverage has been found in this discussion so why not improve the article? instead of complaining, Atlantic306 (talk)

Also, I would expect Admins to know that few people would want to do the work improving the article if it will soon be deleted. If this one survives the AfD process, which is still ongoing after all these weeks, some of the positive voters who found viable sources will probably be willing to improve it afterwards. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was originally "undecided" above but advised folks to search for sources in the singer's home language, and several voters above did so. Enough viable sources have been found to establish the singer's notability, and the article can be improved if/when it survives this process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 15:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mārtiņš Krūmiņš[edit]

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

I couldn't find the significant coverage to show he meets WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. No suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find WP:SIGCOV in an independent search. The article is built upon a single very short source, so I am not sure where the rest of the material came from. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here we find: "Born in Riga, Latvia in 1900, impressionist painter Martins Krumins was influenced by Russian emigre painter Sergei Vinogradovs and studied in his studio from 1929 to 1935. In 1935, he enrolled in the Latvian Academy of Art under the tutelage of Vilhelms Purvitis. Krumins taught painting at the Latvian University Extension in Augsburg, Germany. In 1950 the artist immigrated to the United States and settled in New Jersey. Krumins had several individual exhibitions throughout the United States, Canada, Sweden, France, the Netherlands and Latvia, and participated in many group shows as well. His works can be found in private and public collections." Bus stop (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop: You left out the first part of that biography, which is actually past of a listing for selling a painting: "Krumins, Martin / American (1900-1992) / Haystacks/ Oil on Canvas 9 1/2" x 7 1/2" / $975." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on graffiti artists. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah but they typically have those "reliable source" thingmajigs, which are missing hereThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But problematically they are classified as "artists" and "art". Now don't get me wrong—they are almost, but not quite—"artists" and "art" (in most, I'm sure not all, cases). Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing the point of what you are saying about graffiti. The quoted text you give above is not reliable; it's from a commercial gallery (wiscassetbaygallery.com), which is pretty much free to invent the facts as they please.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bus stop. Although a morecites tag is justified the artist is notable and has an interesting and culturally important backstory. With this additional source a deletion seems a step too far. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 6 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) 04:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [express] || 03:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It appears that the article has undergone editing during the period of discussion, and that these modifications may help establish notability. Or not. Rel-listing for a fourth week does not seem to be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. There is truly no consensus in this present discussion for deletion, drafting, or keeping. I would recommend those interested in the topic apply effort to firmly establish notability, and that we come back here and try again in a few months. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amarachi Okafor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this hagiography for deletion in 2019, and I remain deeply perplexed by the "keep" outcome. I wonder if the community would like to reconsider? —S Marshall T/C 18:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 18:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 18:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I read over the article and the previous AfD process. The article definitely needs work (More areas need citations and more wikilinks), however, she seems notable enough for a wikipedia article. {Message to S Marshall: In my opinion, the article should be a draft, due to how little there is in it, however, since it went through a previous AfD process with a "Keep" outcome, I have to vote keep.} Elijahandskip (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can draftify an article that was previously kept. That might even be the best outcome, unless and until someone decides to rewrite it with less promotional text and more citations.—S Marshall T/C 19:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage, passing WP:GNG. The article can be edited to be clear of promotion instead of deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edited by whom? You?—S Marshall T/C 20:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, apparently by AleatoryPonderings. :) I agree with his proposal to smerge to El Anatsui.—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes I did edit it before AleatoryPonderings, sticking with keep Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per [64], [65], [66]. Alternatively, a selective merge to El Anatsui is possible, as it appears she is best known as a member of his atelier. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I gave up on finding SIGCOV after about 15 minutes of searching. Items like this look promising, but in fact it's an official publication of the JOGA bienniale. There just is not a lot of SIGCOV out there, and there are no museum collections or reviews of solo shows as far as I could see. Selective merge to El Anatsui does not make sense.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:21, 5 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 13:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [gab] || 03:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, not enough significant coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion, previous discussion, and the edits since the nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satte (film)[edit]

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

The only source I could find mentions the film a passing mention: [67]. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello user, I believe Malaysian Tamil language films article are very notable, as all of them are released nationwide in Malaysia, there are sources, our local media have reportings about these films. It is not like student film, it is REAL theatrical films, no reason for not being notable. I feel terribly sad that you want to nominate the deletion of all these articles, most contributed by me. I believe all these can stay. And, the article is well-written and well-cited, plus with good formatting. I WILL ADD MORE RELIABLE SOURCES. You could just add reference tag. Please reconsider and unnominate the deletion, thank you so much ;) User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM 04:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand your intentions of deleting the articles. You must have known these films is very significant in my countries. Although those cited websites are not news website, they are still media website that reports, making these films notable. Meanwhile, these articles are shorter, BUT you may realized that they are really written properly.

For Satte:
I have removed source from Facebook, I have added one more source. Raaga, Varnam, Cinema.com.my are the local media websites that brings reliable information. The Sun is a reliable news site.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above three comments by User:LoveFromBJM, albeit unsigned.
Keep: The external references establish sufficient notability. It is to be noted that WP:FILM sets a very high bar for notability, wanting to have external reviews and secondary sources showing the film has substance and contributes to culture and society and social cohesion, matters like this. There is discussion around this requirement, but we have to work with what we have got, and for now, there is sufficient notablity. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamilMirchi (talk · contribs), Whiteguru (talk · contribs), Latest Thank you to Whiteguru for knowing the significance, Please read the latest version, I added 1 more external review site, plus it has The Sun news website which are reliable news website. // Added IMDB title, remove other external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Only 1 review cited and no more to be found in a search. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Yes one review is present...but still not enough to establish WP:NFILM. The ongoing discussion regarding sourcing for films is mainly for old movies as reliable reviews for those are hard to come by. For a movie released within the last decade, at the peak of the internet age where multiple platforms, both reliable and not, comment on various matters including movies, demanding for a few reliable reviews to establish notability doesnt look like too high a bar. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM; completely agree with Sunshine on this one; if this film were that notable, reviews should exist Spiderone 16:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has already have improved formatting and has been expanded enough to be deemed notable. If we are talking about citations and reviews, these films aren't the level of Blockbusters. Instead, we should do tags for further citations rather than delete it as a whole. Thank you. KesunyianAyam (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NEW LATEST: Added 2 Youtube independent Youtube reviews. User:LoveFromBJM

Comment: YouTube is definitely not a reliable source. Anyone can review a film they like on YouTube! Doesn't help in establishing notability at all. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per everyone above. Fails WP:NFILM. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as does have one reliable review. Also YouTube can be a reliable source dependent on the particular channel such as the official channels of newspapers and television stations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well in this case it's neither. And what has been listed as two independent Youtube reviews is the same review listed twice with a different title. TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! I definitely don't think they ought to count in this discussion Spiderone 16:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely shouldn't be counted, simply based on ethical grounds. Not that fan reviews help in establishing notability anyways. TheRedDomitor (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only see the one review on a Malay site, so WP:NFILM's threshold of two reviews isn't met. The GSC site doesn't come up for me, and YouTube don't qualify as reliable - it's easier to create a review there than to write this stub. The Sun Daily source is about a supporting actor, with a brief mention calling Satte "a local Tamil film" - but with nothing else about the film. There's no other good coverage that I could find, so no chance of WP:GNG coming into play. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep was reviewed. Wm335td (talk) 16:23, 7 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. Izno (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Muni Tharisanam[edit]

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

The only source found in WP:Before is from Bollywood Hungama (unreliable). [68] TamilMirchi (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello user, I believe Malaysian Tamil language films article are very notable, as all of them are released nationwide in Malaysia, there are sources, our local media have reportings about these films. It is not like student film, it is REAL theatrical films, no reason for not being notable. I feel terribly sad that you want to nominate the deletion of all these articles, most contributed by me. I believe all these can stay. And, the article is well-written and well-cited, plus with good formatting. I WILL ADD MORE RELIABLE SOURCES. You could just add reference tag. Please reconsider and unnominate the deletion, thank you so much ;) User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM 04:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand your intentions of deleting the articles. You must have known these films is very significant in my countries. Although those cited websites are not news website, they are still media website that reports, making these films notable. Meanwhile, these articles are shorter, BUT you may realized that they are really written properly.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No coverage by reliable sources whatsoever. Cinema.com. is purely database which indicates the film probably exists (reliability is questionable) but does not confer notability to pass WP:NFILM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshine1191 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamilMirchi (talk · contribs), Sunshine1191 (talk · contribs) Latest Please read the latest version, I removed Cinema.com.my reference, I have added Jothi Media, Selliyal, Anegun (Tamil) are the local reliable news websites that brings reliable information. // Added IMDB title, remove other external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)

Delete None of the citations are reviews of the film, just film databases, articles on the actors, or announcements that the film was released or was shown at a festival. None establish notability and nothing else was found during a search. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Even the latest revision is far from establishing notability. Where is the in-depth coverage? For a minute even forget in-depth, where are the basic reviews? Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, which are the agreed guidelines for films Spiderone 15:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For rising films like Malaysian Tamil films, we need more time to have reviews and critics. Therefore, instead of nominate deletion, we should add tags for more citation and references. The article has expanded enough for notability in a general view. Thanks. KesunyianAyam (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is built on the pillars of verifiability and notability. The first is barely satisfied here as it is and the second is definitely not. Movies are generally reviewed by critics during their theatrical run and definitely within a month of premiere. So it is highly implausible that reliable reviews will turn up more than a year after release. Wiki is an encyclopaedia for notable films, not a film database. IMDB does an excellent job at that. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb doea a lousy job, that's why it is an unreliable source full of errors and fake information, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said that IMDB does an excellent job at maintaining a record of films, which it does. The database covers films of a variety of languages and countries including these films currently listed at Afd. Never said that the records were a hundred percent factual or completely reliable. Sunshine1191 (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The film may or may not be notable a few years down the line. Either ways, Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. The only fact here is that currently the article fails WP:NFILM. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn due to amount of reliable sources added. (non-admin closure) TamilMirchi (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venpa (film)[edit]

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

Again, couldn't find any sources for the film. Hence it is minor and unnotable TamilMirchi (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ARTICLE Hello user, I am assuming that you are a user from India, I am a Malaysian. I believe Malaysian Tamil language films article are very notable, as all of them are released nationwide in Malaysia, there are sources, our local media have reportings about these films. It is not like student film, it is REAL theatrical films, no reason for not being notable. I feel terribly sad that you want to nominate the deletion of all these articles, most contributed by me. I believe all these can stay. And, the article is well-written and well-cited, plus with good formatting. I WILL ADD MORE RELIABLE SOURCES. Venpa is the film with the most box addmission. You could just add reference tag. Please reconsider and unnominate the deletion, thank you so much ;) User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM 04:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must have known these films is very significant in my countries. Although those cited websites are not news website, they are still media website that reports, making these films notable. Meanwhile, these articles are shorter, BUT you may realized that they are really written properly.

For Venpa:
VENPA Is the highest-grossing Malaysian Tamil-language film, it is very very notable. The film even has news in India. I have added 3 more source. Varnam, Cinema.com.my are the local media websites that brings reliable information. 2 Astro Ulagam websites is very reliable, it is a media and news reporting website.

PLEASE READ: I am so shocked that you nominate all the 10 articles to deletion. Why? The article is well written, if you want improvements, just add any tags. Next, our Malaysian Tamil-language film is growing, our previous films do not have articles, so now I created the articles, giving them a GOOD profile. I write the articles properly and with good format styles. What's the meaning of nominate all for deletions one by one? Can't you just leave it be? I feel really frustrated, I hope we can reach consensus soon. I have try to improve those 10 articles. Thank you, please consider to revert nomination for deletion. Cheers.

I have found out that you targeted ALMOST ALL the Tamil-language films from Malaysia. Why? This is utmost disappointing. And it seems like you are abusing your rights. One thing is, the articles are fine to stay despite only local media coverage. The other users and administrators has no issues at all.

Please withdraw ALL nomination before it is too late. Wikipedia is a better place with these articles. Please, i'm begging you. Thank you.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ennaval[edit]

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

All information is unsourced. Only one reliable source exists [69] but it only mentions the film in a passing mention. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello user, you are probably a user from Tamil Nadu, I am a Malaysian myself. I believe Malaysian Tamil language films article are very notable, as all of them are released nationwide in Malaysia, there are sources, our local media have reportings about these films. It is not like student film, it is REAL theatrical films, no reason for not being notable. I feel terribly sad that you want to nominate the deletion of all these articles, most contributed by me. I believe all these can stay. And, the article is well-written and well-cited, plus with good formatting. I WILL ADD MORE RELIABLE SOURCES. You could just add reference tag. Please reconsider and unnominate the deletion, thank you so much ;) User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM 04:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must have known these films is very significant in my countries. Although those cited websites are not news website, they are still media website that reports, making these films notable. Meanwhile, these articles are shorter, BUT you may realized that they are really written properly.

For Ennaval:
TamilMirchi (talk · contribs) Latest Please read the latest version, I have added References column and add sources. // I removed unsourced content, and added references FINAS, Raaga, and 2 The Star reliable news site references (Raaga is the local media websites that brings reliable information. FINAS is Official and very notable. The Star's 2 articles also added, although it only mentions the film name, it means that the film is notable.) // Added IMDB title, remove other external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the citations are reviews of the film, just film databases, articles on the actors, or announcements that the film was released or was shown at a festival. None establish notability and nothing else was found during a search. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Donaldd23's rationale above reflects my opinion exactly. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, which are the agreed guidelines for films Spiderone 16:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film has enough citations and sources to be deemed notable and existence of the film. And it has clear formatting to add my point that it is too harsh to mark it for deletion rather than adding tags to it. KesunyianAyam (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is notability here, not the page format. Movies are generally reviewed by critics during their theatrical run and definitely within a month of premiere. So it is highly implausible that reliable reviews will turn up a year after release. Wiki is an encyclopaedia for notable films, not a film database. IMDB does an excellent job at that. Sunshine1191 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb does a poor job of that with many errors and fake information, that is why it is an unreliable source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said that IMDB does an excellent job at maintaining a record of films, which it does. The database covers films of a variety of languages and countries including these films currently listed at Afd. Never said that the records were a hundred percent factual or completely reliable. Sunshine1191 (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the refs provided appear to cover the film in enough depth needed to establish notability. Might be a case of toosoon but currently fails NFILM. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:10, 2 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. Izno (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RIP?[edit]

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

The film's sources involves blog, videos, and film databases. None of which are notable. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 20:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM. KidAd talk 03:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable film Spudlace (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Latest COMPLETE OVERHAUL Please read the latest version, I reformat the article into mainstream form and format styles // Although still a stub and short article, from dead references to WITH references // I added The Star article, which are the very notable news websites that brings reliable information. // Remove other excessive external links // Better than never --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)
Delete- Nope...NOT A COMPLETE OVERHAUL. Any sourcing present is still only database entries. Fails WP:NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, fails WP:NFILM --Devokewater (talk) 15:56, 2 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. Izno (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puthiya Payanam[edit]

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

There are no in-depth sources that are needed. Where are the reviews? There are only two sources that mention the film once [70] and [71]. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; the database listings prove that the film exists but there is nothing to establish notability Spiderone 08:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Latest COMPLETE OVERHAUL Please read the latest version, I reformat the article into mainstream form and format styles // From dead references to WITH SOURCES // added synopsis // I added MarazTV and 2 Malay-language new sources, both are news websites that brings reliable information. // Remove other excessive external links // Remove excessive wordings // Add IMDB title --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)
Delete- I understand LoveFromBJM's sentiments in trying to improve the article but would hardly call the changes made as a COMPLETE OVERHAUL. Even the latest revision of the article is light-years away from establishing WP:NFILM. All the references listed revolve either around the film's release date or box office performance. Purely database. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even with the "overhaul" it fails WP:NFILM. Films on Wikipedia usually need published reviews to be considered notable, not youtube videos. And, as for formatting and grammar, that's great, but it doesn't establish notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maama Machan[edit]

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

Again, no sources exist. Fails notability for films. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; we will need more than database listings and cinema showtimes to establish notability Spiderone 08:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources given satisfy WP:NFILM, secondary criticism and substance for this movie. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Latest COMPLETE OVERHAUL Please read the latest version, I reformat the article into mainstream form and format styles // From dead references to WITH SOURCES // I added Selliyal, Tamil news websites that brings reliable information, including film review. // Remove other excessive external links // Add IMDB title --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)
Comment - still insufficient for GNG and NFILM; one review exists and that was only a very brief one at that Spiderone 16:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't think I need to explain why again. As per the reasons stated above. Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources don't establish notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vettai Karuppar Ayya[edit]

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

Completely unsouced. The only source I could find: [72] which only mentions the film once. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; the film exists but there is a complete lack of coverage/reviews Spiderone 21:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Latest COMPLETE OVERHAUL Please read the latest version, I reformat the article into mainstream form and format styles // From dead references to WITH SOURCES // I added MarazTV and Times of India sources, news websites that brings reliable information. // Remove other excessive external links // Remove exessive links // Add IMDB title --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)
Comment - I'm sorry but I can't see that those sources are any improvement whatsoever. Where are the reviews? Spiderone 15:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As per the latest revision; No notability whatsoever. All references provided are plain database-type coverage entries. Not a single review. Fails NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the sources provided are basic coverage such as release date and stuff. No in-depth coverage and no reviews to help in establishing WP:NFILM. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:15, 2 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. Izno (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aasaan (film)[edit]

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

Completely undersourced film. This film is not a mainstream one. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; the article claims that the film was released to mixed reviews but I'm struggling to find a single review Spiderone 21:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Latest COMPLETE OVERHAUL Please read the latest version, I reformat the article into mainstream form and format styles // From dead references to WITH SOURCES // I added 4 Selliyal Tamil-language sources, including 1 film review site, Selliyal is very notable news websites that brings reliable information. // Remove other excessive external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)
Delete- Purely Database-type coverage. Nothing substantial to indicate notability. Fails WP:NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the reference tagged as 'Film review...' is not a review at all Spiderone 15:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Spiderone's assessment. Doesn't appear to pass NFILM. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:18, 2 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)} 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayangaathey[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources for this minor film. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; doesn't appear to have any published reviews at all Spiderone 09:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Latest COMPLETE OVERHAUL Please read the latest version, I reformat the article into mainstream form and format styles // From no references to WITH references // I added 2 MalayMail, 2 Selliyal (Tamil), 1 Selliyal film review, all sources are very notable news websites that brings reliable information. // Remove other excessive external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)
Comment - still insufficient, in my opinion. There is one full length review but the other sources only cover the subject extremely briefly Spiderone 15:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NEW LATEST Added 1 Youtube independent review source. To TamilMirchi (talk · contribs), you have to know that this film, the film collected more box office, it is one of the Top 10 highest grossing Malaysian Tamil film, so it sure counts as more notability, it is very notable --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)

YouTube is not a reliable source Spiderone 17:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as there is now one full review referenced in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As per NFILM guidelines, two reviews from RS are required to establish notability. Rest of the refs are basic coverage such as release date and cast names and the YouTube review is by a fan. Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see how the scanty coverage provided passes NFILM or GNG. (t · c) buidhe 20:59, 4 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. Izno (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnokam[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources for this minor film. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To TamilMirchi (talk · contribs) Latest COMPLETE OVERHAUL Please read the latest version, I reformat the article into mainstream form and format styles // From no references to WITH references // I added 2 The Star article, 1 New Straits Times article, which are the very notable news websites that brings reliable information. // Remove other excessive external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)
Delete: - linked coverage only mentions the film in passing. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non-notable film. Cinema.com's reliability is questionable and it is a plain database entry, not in-depth coverage. The Star article speaks about Cine Awards (passing mention). Fails WP:NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete absence of any coverage in reliable sources Spiderone 16:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:39, 2 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. Izno (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaagarathu[edit]

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

Completely undersourced film that is not mainstream nor notable. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; can't find anything more than database listings or YouTube videos for this one Spiderone 08:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To TamilMirchi (talk · contribs), Spiderone (talk · contribs) Latest COMPLETE OVERHAUL Please read the latest version, I reformat and rewrite the article into mainstream form and format styles // From no references to WITH references // Removed excessive wordings // I added Varnam and Maraz TV, which are the local reliable news websites that brings reliable information. Varnam source features super complete review. Yahoo news site cites the release. Better than never. // Remove other excessive external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)
Comment - Vallinam provides a review and it's a good one by the looks of it. If there is one more that could be found, I would happily change my vote to keep. Maraz is simply a press release and does nothing towards notability and the Yahoo source is a passing mention so not acceptable either. Spiderone 09:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One review does not pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as does have one full reliable sources review included in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- One review isn't enough to establish notability. If the film is indeed notable then it should have been covered by more than one platform. Fails GNG. Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The one review present seems to be the base supporting the entire article. Both of the other refs provided do not contribute anything towards establishing notability which basically renders their existence moot, making it a one source article. Tagging for improvement could have been done by the nom too. The point of an Afd is to make an assessment based on notability... so currently all-in-all the article fails WP:NFILM. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TamilMirchi (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Maalai[edit]

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

The only source I could find was [73] which briefly mentions the film. There is not enough media coverage of this film. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello user, I believe Malaysian Tamil language films article are very notable, as all of them are released nationwide in Malaysia, there are sources, our local media have reportings about these films. It is not like student film, it is REAL theatrical films, no reason for not being notable. I feel terribly sad that you want to nominate the deletion of all these articles, most contributed by me. I believe all these can stay. And, the article is well-written and well-cited, plus with good formatting. Please reconsider and unnominate the deletion, thank you so much ;) User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM 04:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand your intentions of deleting the articles. You must have known these films is very significant in my countries. Although those cited websites are not news website, they are still media website that reports, making these films notable. Meanwhile, these articles are shorter, BUT you may realized that they are really written properly.

For Metro Maalai:
I have added 2 more source. Raaga, Varnam, Cinema.com.my are the local media websites that brings reliable information. Add The Sun's source, add a review site.

PLEASE READ: I am so shocked that you nominate all the 10 articles to deletion. Why? The article is well written, if you want improvements, just add any tags. Next, our Malaysian Tamil-language film is growing, our previous films do not have articles, so now I created the articles, giving them a GOOD profile. I write the articles properly and with good format styles. What's the meaning of nominate all for deletions? Can't you just leave it be? I feel really frustrated, I hope we can reach consensus soon. I have try to improve those 10 articles. Thank you, please consider to revert nomination for deletion. Cheers.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Lacks notable coverage by reliable sources. Most of the references, including YouTube and Cinema.com, are database entries regarding the film's trailer and release date. Nothing substantial to confer WP:NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamilMirchi (talk · contribs), Sunshine1191 (talk · contribs), Latest Please read the latest version, I removed Youtube and Cinema.com.my references, now it has 3 Anegun Tamil-language references, which are reliable news website. Plus 2 Tamil-language (Seithi) news site, 1 independent movie review website, 1 media news website, 1 news website (The Sun) // Added IMDB title, remove other external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as two full reviews which have been added to the referencing of the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 2 full reviews by independent sources Spiderone 15:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding WP:Films, "the film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Asian Movie Pulse is not a nationally known critic. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It can also pass WP:GNG, you don't seem to be trying very hard to find sources Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azhaggiye Thee[edit]

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

Unsourced film. Facebook, Cinema.my, and Youtube are not reliable sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello user, you are probably a user from Tamil Nadu, I am a Malaysian myself. I believe Malaysian Tamil language films article are very notable, as all of them are released nationwide in Malaysia, there are sources, our local media have reportings about these films. It is not like student film, it is REAL theatrical films, no reason for not being notable. I feel terribly sad that you want to nominate the deletion of all these articles, most contributed by me. I believe all these can stay. And, the article is well-written and well-cited, plus with good formatting. I WILL ADD MORE RELIABLE SOURCES. You could just add reference tag. Please reconsider and unnominate the deletion, thank you so much ;) User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM 04:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

India's Indian films and Malaysia's Indian films should not withstand the same standards of notability. You must have known these films is very significant in my countries. Although those cited websites are not news website, they are still media website that reports, making these films notable. Meanwhile, these articles are shorter, BUT you may realized that they are really written properly.

For Azhaggiye Thee:
TamilMirchi (talk · contribs) Latest Please read the latest version, I have removed sources from Facebook, and added 3 more source. 1 external film review website, 2 notable news websites Malaysia Kini, Malaysia Gazette which are reliable sources. // Added IMDB title, remove other excess external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a full review has now been added to the referencing as well as significant coverage in The Malaysian Gattee so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 2 reliable sources cover this film at length Spiderone 15:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding WP:Films, "the film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Rollo De Pelicula is not a nationally known critic. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rollo De Pelicula is kinda known in my country, please don't use your own loathly standards to judge. Also added 1 Anegun source. User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM

It can also pass WP:GNG which you should have found in your WP:BEFORE, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paakaati Po[edit]

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

There should not be articles for Malaysian Tamil films that have no reliable sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello user, I believe Malaysian Tamil language films article are very notable, as all of them are released nationwide in Malaysia, there are reliable sources, our local media have reportings about these films. It is not like student film, it is REAL theatrical films, no reason for not being notable. I feel terribly sad that you want to nominate the deletion of all these articles, most contributed by me. I believe all these can stay. And, the article is well-written and well-cited, plus with good formatting. Please reconsider and unnominate the deletion, thank you so much ;) User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM 04:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must have known these films is very significant in my countries. Although those cited websites are not news website, they are still media website that reports, making these films notable. Meanwhile, these articles are shorter, BUT you may realized that they are really written properly.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable independent reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. As to the "Cinema.com" citation, that's a film database site which provides no indication that the film is notable, just that it exists. The "Varnam" might be a reliable source, except that the article is just a notice that the film was released and that it has a trailer. Again, that doesn't prove the film is notable...only that the film exists. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamilMirchi (talk · contribs) Latest Please read the latest version, I have added sources from Varnam, Anegun, Raaga, the local media websites that brings reliable information. I removed Cinema.com.my and excessive Youtube reference // Added 1 external film review site // Added IMDB title, remove other external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)

Comment still fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As per Donaldd23's first rationale above. Also, even the changes made fail to provide anything substantial to indicate notability. Infact, highly motivated creator LoveFromBJM's failed attempts at finding reliable, in-depth coverage for the film just goes to show that it just does not have the neccessary specs to statisfy WP:NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, which are the agreed guidelines for films Spiderone 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We all should consider that this is a newly released, rising film in its genre. Instead of deleting the article, we should put tags to add more citations and reliable sources. Thanks. KesunyianAyam (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got reliable sources to evidence that this is a rising film in its genre? The film was released about half a year ago but still doesn't seem to have even one single review about it. Spiderone 17:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "May be a rising film in its genre" is a speculation, with clearly no hard proof to back it up. Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. The only fact here is that currently the article fails WP:NFILM. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:29, 1 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. Izno (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Santhittha Naal Muthal[edit]

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

During the WP:Before search, I couldn't find any reliable sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello user, I believe Malaysian Tamil language films article are very notable, as all of them are released nationwide in Malaysia, there are sources, our local media have reportings about these films. It is not like student film, it is REAL theatrical films, no reason for not being notable. I feel terribly sad that you want to nominate the deletion of all these articles, most contributed by me. I believe all these can stay. And, the article is well-written and well-cited, plus with good formatting. Please reconsider and unnominate the deletion, thank you so much ;) User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM 04:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand your intentions of deleting the articles. You must have known these films is very significant in my countries. Although those cited websites are not news website, they are still media website that reports, making these films notable. Meanwhile, these articles are shorter, BUT you may realized that they are really written properly.

For Santhittha Naal Muthal:
I have added one more source. Raaga, Varnam, Cinema.com.my are the local media websites that brings reliable information.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable independent reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. "Cinema.com" citation...that's a film database site which provides no indication that the film is notable, just that it exists. "Varnam" is just a notice that the film was released and that it has a trailer. Again, that doesn't prove the film is notable...only that the film exists. No "Raaga" citation found in the article. Everything else cited is YOUTUBE. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cinema.com is as much good for notability as IMDb is (i.e. not at all). Delete as per Donald's reasoning Spiderone 08:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamilMirchi (talk · contribs) Latest Please read the latest version, Cinema.com.my has some notability; I added Varnam, Raaga, Selliyal (Tamil) are the local reliable news websites that brings reliable information. // Added IMDB title, remove other excessive external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)

Varnam and Raaga are simply just routine press releases merely stating the release date of the film and the trailer. Selliyal only provides a passing mention so still a clear GNG fail Spiderone 09:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Lacks coverage from reliable sources. All sources present are either database entries or passing mentions. Not enough to establish WP:NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: we should consider it as a rising genre and film, why must be a deletion when we can put tags to improve it? Isn't Wikipedia is all about improving articles? why the rush of saying a film has no nobility at all? For the sake of the industry. Just put tags. Thanks. KesunyianAyam (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "rush" in considering notability is because notability is one of the main pillars Wikipedia is built on. Else there would be articles for every single thingamabob in the universe! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable films, not a film database. IMDB does an decent job at keeping a record. Sunshine1191 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Endless tagging of films in the past purely based on speculation that they may be notable a few years down the line is what has given rise to footling arguments like OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only fact here is that currently the article fails WP:NFILM. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:35, 1 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. Izno (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthless Order[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC, sourced entirely to primary sources and blog-like reviews, could not find reliable source coverage. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom - no evidence of notability. Sourcing is trash - primary sources and blogs. Created by a user back in 2010 whose sole Wikipedia activity this was. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unakkagathane[edit]

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

Not a mainstream film. Therefore, there are no sources for this article that are reliable. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello user, I believe Malaysian Tamil language films article are very notable, as all of them are released nationwide in Malaysia, there are sources, our local media have reportings about these films. It is not like student film, it is REAL theatrical films, no reason for not being notable. I feel terribly sad that you want to nominate the deletion of all these articles, most contributed by me. I believe all these can stay. And, the article is well-written and well-cited, plus with good formatting. Please reconsider and unnominate the deletion, thank you so much ;) User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM 04:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand your intentions of deleting the articles. You must have known these films is very significant in my countries. Although those cited websites are not news website, they are still media website that reports, making these films notable. Meanwhile, these articles are shorter, BUT you may realized that they are really written properly.

For Unnakkagathane:
I have added one more source. Raaga, Varnam, Cinema.com.my are the local media websites that brings reliable information.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All citations are film listings, databases, or just announcements that the film was released. No reliable independent reviews were added and I couldn't find any in a search. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM; I completely agree with Donald's assessment above Spiderone 06:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Does not satisfy WP:NFILM. All references listed are purely database-type entries such as release dates, cinema listings etc. Not a single solid review by a reliable source and web searches have also failed in providing anything substantial. Fails GNG. Sunshine1191 (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Izno (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Athaiyum Thaandi[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources for this minor film. Since there are no sources, not much content can be written. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello user, you are probably a user from Tamil Nadu, I am a Malaysian myself. I believe Malaysian Tamil language films article are very notable, as all of them are released nationwide in Malaysia, there are sources, our local media have reportings about these films. It is not like student film, it is REAL theatrical films, no reason for not being notable. I feel terribly sad that you want to nominate the deletion of all these articles, most contributed by me. I believe all these can stay. And, the article is well-written and well-cited, plus with good formatting. Please reconsider and unnominate the deletion, thank you so much ;) User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM 04:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand your intentions of deleting the articles. You must have known these films is very significant in my countries. Although those cited websites are not news website, they are still media website that reports, making these films notable. Meanwhile, these articles are shorter, BUT you may realized that they are really written properly.

For Athaiyum Thaandi:
I have added one more source. Raaga, Varnam, Cinema.com.my, Astro are the local media websites that brings reliable information.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable independent reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. As to the "Cinema.com" citation, that's a film database site which provides no indication that the film is notable, just that it exists. The "Varnam" might be a reliable source, except that the article is just a notice that the film was released and that it has a trailer. Again, that doesn't prove the film is notable...only that the film exists. The "Astro" citation is from a TV site that says the film is available to rent online, that's advertising and not a RS. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As per Donaldd23's rationale above. My opinion exactly. Sunshine1191 (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we will need more than mere database listings to prove notability here Spiderone 08:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamilMirchi (talk · contribs) Latest Please read the latest version, I removed Cinema.com.my reference, I have added Astro, Varnam, Makkalosai and Maalai Malar (Both Tamil) are the local reliable news websites that brings reliable information. // remove other excess external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)

Comment Several sources have now been added including Makkal Osai, Maalai Malar, and Varnam. --TamilMirchi (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamilMirchi (talk · contribs), as the nominator, you may speedy keep it now. Thanks --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)

Procedural note: LoveFromBJM As per Afd policy, nominations for deletion can't be withdrawn as long as there is an extant Delete !vote present. If you, as the creator of the article, feel that the article has been substantially improved then you must convince the editors who have voted for Deletion to change their votes to Keep. Until then, the nominator (TamilMirchi) won't be able to withdraw their nom. TheRedDomitor (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still can't see that there is enough to pass WP:NFILM. Are there any reviews at all? Spiderone 09:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Doesn't look like it...not in the current revision anyway. Of the new sources added too, one is just a bunch of listings of movie theatres screening the film! Still far from establishing WP:NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunshine1191: I agree. Unless evidence does come forward of reviews, I'll be sticking with my delete vote. Spiderone 10:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unihalt[edit]

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

Fails NCORP as the coverage for this startup is mostly routine. The only significant coverage I could find was in this article [74]. M4DU7 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a quick check but found nothing meeting WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP in its current form. Sources cited are all press releases or sponsored articles. Northern Escapee (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a Yellow Pages. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:09, 1 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 13:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Show Farm[edit]

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

Notability concerns. No independent references in the article. References found are either review sites such as TripAdvisor, or trivial mentions such as [75]. I don't think a merge to Oudtshoorn would be appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G11. I just tagged it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insignificant article about a nondescript animal farm. Advertising as per above. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Farm fails WP:MILL, as it has no significant differences than any other farm. Koridas 📣 02:20, 2 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. Izno (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Staggered column[edit]

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

The single source given is a dead link, and searching for it seemed to suggest that a staggered column is a term used in architecture (i.e. not what the article suggests). Loafiewa (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is a real thing, [76] and [77]]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, basic military thing. If there is an architecture thing, make a separate article. See sources: [78][79][80][81][82][83]. Pikavoom (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, improve Spudlace (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadreza Karami[edit]

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

Notability-- Editor7798 (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As above, the subject does not pass WP:ANYBIO; the robots might, the girls robotics team, yea. But not Karami. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Nika2020 (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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