< 3 September 5 September >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aisi Bhi Kya Jaldi Hai[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a 2-line plot summary at BFI and a blog (by someone who thinks that a 1996 film is "really old"), but nothing of any substance. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:17, 6 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empire One[edit]

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

Notability concerns with this one (and quite possibly dozens of others created by the same author) if coverage by the independently run (and defunct) online magazine with a single proprietor, Sonic Boom, isn't deemed significant. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:59, 4 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 Tribun News. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warta Kota[edit]

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

does not seem notable. Only ref/external link is to its own webpage. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:01, 5 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 speedy keep. Nominated by a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajman University[edit]

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

The article does not have anything of value to be listed on WP. Even under WP:UNIV it does not stand. There are no references other than to its own website. Earlier it was put up for speedy by me because the entire article was copy vio. Unless the article can be substantially improved and referenced per WP guidelines (including the 'Notable Alumni') it should be deleted. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pikavoom: - Do you have any other sources besides Google Books? AquariusWineOwl (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why on Earth would we require sources other than reliable books? They are far better sources that the web sites and news articles that are often cited in support of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: I was just asking if you had anything other than the books. I never said they were not of value, so I apologize if you interpreted it that way. @John from Idegon: The entire article was put up for a speedy as it was a complete copy and paste, an editor removed the speedy and reverted the article to way back when. When I look at WP:UNIV it does not meet any criteria nor does it have any sources other than the school website itself. The person who removed the speedy stated they removed it based on "all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia" however, the rest of that states "Hence the advice is not intended to lend additional support to deletion discussions". The article has exactly one line in it "The Ajman University of Science and Technology (AUST) is a technology-oriented university in Ajman, United Arab Emirates.[1] The university was founded in 1988 as a university college. Notable alumni include Yaser Birjas." and nothing else. It had a references needed notice up there dated back a couple of years, however, I can not pull it up because the history for that part appears to be deleted (from 30 AUG 2020 to 4 SEPT 2020 is not clickable). I will not withdraw the nomination, I am sorry. This is not an article in the least. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Please be more specific about what you mean with "BEFORE". You have not linked to anything and "BEFORE" is a pretty ambiguous term. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John from Idegon: Instead of being rude and vague, you could have simply stated WP:BEFORE, much easier that way. I have already stated my steps above. Now I will add that the first google book linked states what the capacity is, not how many are enrolled so that throws out "Appears significant with thousands of students ([5])" This source ([6]) is specifically for that area and is 12 years old and only describes the University. This source ([7]) is an Atlas that is 7 years (or more) old. It is a brief mention of the University being in the state. Then this source ([8]) again is only a passing mention of the University being in the area listed with other Universities. I did search for sources and there are not a lot of them of them out there. Just a basic google search only brings up it exists. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: You have no right to close this as I was typing up my response to answer your question. It is now answered. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also need to add that I cannot get to the reference that is listed on the page. Is this site http://education.theemiratesnetwork.com/university/United_Arab_Emirates/Ajman/Ajman_University_of_Science_Technology_1007.html restricted to in country only? AquariusWineOwl (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you are part of the reason why new editors do not want to be on here. You are a complete and utterly rude person. No I do not work for any college or any education institution. So what stinks is probably your own breath. I will close this because I am not wasting time with you. Why don't you use your "Has more experience on US school articles than probably any other WP editor" and make the article worth more than a sentence. PS - You can now close this and hopefully you learn some freaking manners! I mean you can't even follow talk page rules with indentation and such. AquariusWineOwl (talk) 03:57, 6 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warren O’Hora[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps for senior Brighton or MK Dons teams, and Ireland league isn't fully-pro. Brighton U21 squad can't be fully-pro by definition. BlameRuiner (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that would be WP:COMMONSENSE rather than following the strict black-and-white rules that govern Wikipedia (spoiler - there's no such thing!) I wouldn't leave it for the whole season, but should get a good idea on what the likely outcome is, in a couple of days. At the same time, I fail to understand why User:GiantSnowman continues to provide delete votes, on a player that is so likely to play soon, that they created a draft themselves! I also don't understand, after repeated requests, they don't create drafts in draft space, rather than burying them in their user space, so as to avoid wasting the time of other editors who independently start creating the same article. Nfitz (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A player cannot "meet" WP:FPL as you claim... GiantSnowman 10:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that it wasn't clear to you User:GiantSnowman, after years of discussion, that this was shorthand for meets WP:NFOOTBALL because he has played on a team in a league listed in WP:FPL. I feel that either you are being deliberately obtuse, which violates WP:CIVIL, or you are violating WP:CIR. Is there another option I may not have considered? Nfitz (talk) 00:38, 9 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Lascelles[edit]

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

68th in the line of succession to the British throne but no evidence of notability as a photographer. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 4 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benild Joseph[edit]

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

Non-notable cracker. The majority of the sources are pieces he wrote, and the rest are either name-drops or stuff he says. Two are 404-compliant (one of which is a newspaper clipping that returns a service-specific "this image doesn't exist" placeholder). Google News returns nothing (String: "Benild Joseph"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 22:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 5 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Geana[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist. References are to his articles, not to articles that imply his notability or significance. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and as per off-wiki evidence your friend is hiring freelancers to vote here in their favour @Bearian:. GSS 💬 04:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen such evidence, and I have not contacted the subject in any way. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask him the same and I'm happy to share the evidence with any admin on request through email. GSS 💬 16:44, 10 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of patient-reported quality of life surveys[edit]

List of patient-reported quality of life surveys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see why we need a list of all studies of a certain types. What's next? List of randomized single-blind drug trials? List of cohort studies?

This is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 4 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.. A redirect can be created if desired. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicular Lunatics[edit]

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

Non notable documentary, tagged for 9 years. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:34, 4 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 21:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sivaranjani (2019 film)[edit]

Sivaranjani (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find any reliable reviews. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:34, 4 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Edmondson[edit]

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

Minor character in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica; no substantive coverage in reliable sources that I am aware of; not the focus of any substantive story arc either. Previous AfD was closed largely for procedural reasons, and looking through the google books results mentioned therein, I only see passing mentions. Delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 8 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, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Kelly (Battlestar Galactica)[edit]

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

Minor character in the reimagined Battlestar Galactica; no substantive coverage in reliable sources that I am aware of; not the focus of any substantive story arc either. Previous AfD was closed largely for procedural reasons, and looking through the google books results mentioned therein, I only see passing mentions. Delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Albert[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 4 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 21:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sega controllers[edit]

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

There's nothing particularly special about controllers for Sega video game consoles as a whole that makes them notable enough for an article. Appropriate coverage for each controller is already included in their respective console articles, or in cases like Menacer, in their own respective article. Sources used here are unreliable save for the Loguidice book. Not really anything to merge here, either, as all of the Sega console articles are exhaustively researched and include details about the controllers and other accessories from reliable sources in their respective articles. Red Phoenix talk 19:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Red Phoenix talk 19:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:44, 4 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 outcome was speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1: withdrawn by nominator, with no outstanding !votes to delete. Thanks to Yngvadottir for the WP:HEY.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DAVA Foods[edit]

DAVA Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
About five years ago, someone translated the first two sentences of a Danish language article about this Danish company, and then abandoned it. Apparently, this corporation has just over three hundred employees and it sells eggs.
Well, I nominated it for A7 today, and the reviewing sysop decided to add one (1) reference and one (1) sentence about a historic salmonella scare, and then directed me to AfD.
The Danish language version of this article may be acceptable and could be translated, but nobody has done that and Wikipedia:Pages needing translation is so catastrophically backlogged with far more important work that I think there's little real prospect of anyone doing so for quite a few years. Until that happens, please will the community authorise its deletion. —S Marshall T/C 19:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 6 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 Kendriya Vidyalaya. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Angul[edit]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Angul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a secondary school that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / WP:ORG. Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sources in the article do not meet WP:RS   // Timothy :: talk  19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  19:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 4 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 19:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appliance Technician[edit]

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

Non notable appliance repair company in a Ottawa. The references are mostly fake. Instead of supporting the claims in the article they either have nothing to do with it or are covert attacks on competitors. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This is basically WP:G11 worthy. Half of those references don't even mention Canada, much less the company. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 17:36, 5 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. General consensus that GNG is met. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Katarina of Yugoslavia[edit]

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

Normally I might regard the granddaughter of a king as notable, but in her case she was born after the abolition of the monarchy in Yugoslavia, so never really a princess. PatGallacher (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:56, 11 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 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Hassan (Maldives cricketer)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer. Fails WP:NCRIC. While they have played in international matches for the Maldives, these matches were NOT in a World Cup/T20 World Cup Qualifier or Regional Final. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 4 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 20:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RetroSBK[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 4 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Coya[edit]

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

First of all, I can't find any evidence of notability. But also, this article is such a dumpster fire of irrelevant info, unsourced claims, and incomprehensible English, that it's hard to see any benefit in keeping. Sourcing is going to be hard to come by, but if someone thinks they can manage, this probably needs to be rewritten from scratch anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 4 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Workshop[edit]

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

I'm not sure what to make of this one The topic doesn't seem notable and anything that talks about a "newly emerging form of literacy, the Internet" , in 2020, may be unredeemable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:54, 4 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. Gopikrishnan[edit]

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

The sources present in the article itself are either not independent, not reliable or are passing mentions. A before search presents a similar picture with mostly passing mention that too mostly from unreliable sources. At best the subject is a boderline case of WP:BLP1E. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Priyanjali singh: Would you be able to please provide those sources, as well as evidence for the claim that Gopikrishnan received that award? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsPugle: Found these resources and i think these are enough to justify the subject's notability. Thhindu, HindustanTimes, ZeeNews. Priyanjali singh (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Priyanjali singh: The Hindu and ZeeNews sources gives a somewhat passive, one-sentence mention about Gopikrishnan, which was limited to again, the 2G spectrum scandal (See WP:NTEMP and WP:SUSTAINED) and the Hindustan source only lists Gopikrishnan as someone who gave evidence in a trial. I don't quite think that's notable enough. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:10, 4 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Maxwell[edit]

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

I came across this individual while looking into sources for the deletion discussion regarding one of his books, and found that not only was that book non-notable, but there are no actual sources demonstrating the author is, either. The only claim to notability in the article is winning a non-notable award. There are two sources included, but one is just in a local newspaper for the area he lives in, and the other is a one-sentence mention. Searching for additional sources turns up a handful of interviews in non-notable podcasts, and that's about it. It appears that many, if not all, of his books were self-published, and did not gain any kind of coverage or press. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 4 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. While some editors feel that the stations should be discussed on a case-by-case basis (and they still can), there is a consensus the content is generally notable. A merger (which would be controversial) can still be discussed outside of AFD. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits Radio North Derbyshire[edit]

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

This is one of a large number of English local radio stations which have been closed and replaced with a national network. There does not seem to be a need for a page for all these stations - a single page listing Greatest Hits Radio stations should suffice CallLetters (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has also tagged the following articles for deletion under this page. Nthep (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits Radio Staffordshire & Cheshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greatest Hits Radio Wigan & St Helens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greatest Hits Radio North East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greatest Hits Radio Yorkshire Coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greatest Hits Radio York and North Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also pinging Chocolateediter as they have been doing extensive editing on the GHR pages in the wake of the September 1 network restructuring. Raymie (t • c) 00:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I suggest a predecessor and successor line in info box(just use code from old countries info box) for content rich older stations. This can also be on regional info boxes and saves constantly referring to and listing old stations in articles.
GHR North Derbyshire keep and GHR Derbyshire created. User:Chocolateediter (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chocolateediter and Pelican104: That might be the WP:COMMONNAME solution down the road where these articles are at the last non-GHR station name. We don't have predecessor/successor functionality in this infobox (because most stations we can write in one chunk of an article) but I wonder if the |above= field might be used here for "Merged into Greatest Hits Radio"... Raymie (t • c) 20:38, 6 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 speedy keep Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm Bacon 17:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Glenarvan[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable fictional character, has been in CAT:NN since 2011 and has been tagged as no sources since that same time. This is the fiction story he appears in, so it's a primary source. I'm finding largely mirrors and the primary source materials on Google, along with a few blogs. This apparently refers to the unrelated Glenarvon. Here's the novel again. There's a ton of search engine noise for Glenarvon, the unrelated novel of a different spelling, but I'm finding nothing for Lord Glenarvan. Hog Farm Bacon 16:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 16:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 16:55, 4 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 speedy delete per WP:G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbarJatt. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsApp University[edit]

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

Contested CSD. Reason was "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page created by a banned or blocked user (Guy Foxx) in violation of the user's ban or block, with no substantial edits by others. See CSD G5." (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbarJatt

Reason for contesting stated as "CSD contested: sourced article, substantial edits by other editors"

The edits by other editors were not substantial, as the article history shows.

I am making a technical nomination because I think it should be discussed now. My nomination is Neutral, though I may offer an opinion as the discussion progresses Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, I thought there were enough edits by other users to contest the CSD. If you want I can revert my edits to restore the CSD notice and withdraw my contest. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I.Bhardwaj, We are here now. AfDs must run their course. I believe you were mistaken over the substantial nature of the edits Fiddle Faddle 17:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, my apologies. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 17:32, 4 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CIVSA[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. The article has been tagged as relying on primary sources and potentially not notable since 2010. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 4 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) 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crayons Advertising[edit]

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

A advertising agency that lacks significant coverage and fails WP:CORP. A WP:BEFORE does not show in-depth non trivial coverage in reliable sources. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:51, 4 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. There is agreement here that the article should be deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail MacBride Allen[edit]

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

This is the extreme in one-event notability. 3 of the references are incidental mentions in coverage of a political campaign by her father. The article does not do justice in putting her "appearances" with her father in that campaign in perspective. She turned 6 some time in the year he ran for president. Then we have mention of her in her father's obituary. Then we have coverage of the lawsuit over the literary rights she inherited from her father. That case was settled in her favor 19 years ago, yet we have absolutely nothing about her since. Based on her fahter's name and her name, I assume she is or was at one point married, but no one seems to have cared about that. Being heir to a literary fortune is not a sign of notability. Keep in mind that the fortune is that of her adoptive father's some sort of pseudo-mother mentors, mother. In the time Ms. Allen has been the holder of the Laura Ingalls Wilder literary legacy, Mrs. Wilder had a major literary award unnamed after her in an example of cancel culture, yet it appears that no one in that debate thought that the holder of the Wilder literary fortune was someone worth consulting about the matter. Actually on further inspection it appears her father was chosen as the heir by Mrs. Wilder's daughter because he was his political disciple. Her father actually did things with the legacy at least, producing a TV show for example. There is no evidence Mrs. Allen has done anything with it. Any mention of her we can just include in the article on her father, but I see no reason to include much since almost nothing is known. Most of what I can find in a web search is Wikipedia mirrors, some of it demonstrating just how much influence Wikipedia having an article can have and how we need to be more deliberative about the article creation process. A show of how non-notable even in the lawsuit by the Laura Ingles Wilder Library to get control of the literary estate Mrs. Allen was, it took 10 praragraphs into the article to even name her. Beyond this, Mrs. Allen has actually turned over the control of this legacy to the Little House Heritage Trust, which may or may not have her as the sole controller. This New York Post article [11] says a little bit more about Mrs. Allen, but it says nothing about her by any normal standard, she had been the controlled of the estate for 4 years when the lawsuit was brought, yet there is no evidence she had done anything with it. We do get this short line "Miami-based MacBride suffered a fatal heart attack on March 5, 1995, at age 65, but his daughter Abigail MacBride Allen has overseen the publication of her father’s unpublished manuscripts, starting with The Other Side of the Hill (1995), Little Town in the Ozarks (1996), New Dawn on Rocky Ridge (1997) and On the Banks of the Bayou (1998). The books take Rose up to age 17 when she’s off to follow her dreams." from this source http://libertarianstvo.org/en/personalities/item/72-rose-wilder-lane, but overseeing publication of a few works is not a sign of notability, especially when they were largely written by someone else. I am reduced to scrapping up things like this [12] Amazon review of a book attributed to her father, but published under her perview, and the agreement here is her role in the work makde it worse, although this is a random Amazon review with no indication they even know what Mrs. Allen's actual role in the work was, so not a reliable source. We do here [13] learn the fact that she wrote an intro to a collection of travel diaries by Mrs. Wilder, and for whatever reason she is referred to in this reference as Abigail MacBride. There is no reason to have a freestanding article on Mrs. Allen John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the original author of the article, I saw it as an essential piece related to the history of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Because the settings of Wilders' books are in the 19th century, there is strong cross-interest by her readers in genealogy and Midwestern history. Every year new fans ask if Laura Ingalls Wilder has any newly-living descendants. Abigail MacBride Allen is the only "descendant" in any sense of the word, since there are no actual descendants. As such, and due to legal reasons, she is the sole heir of the Laura Ingalls Wilder's literary estate. Wilders' books have sold 60-100 million copies over time, and annual sales are still very high for books published nearly 100 years ago. The TV series based on her books, "Little House on the Prairie," shows in 140 countries--even though the last episode was filmed in 1984. With this level of attention, I do not believe any "family member" (even if by legal connection) is irrelevant--especially since there is only one. In addition, this article makes Wikipedia especially valuable. There are no other sources online that have any information on Abigail MacBride Allen.
There is another aspect that concerns me with Johnpacklambert's challenge to this article. The talk discussion is a roundabout of ideas on why this person is not notable enough. One is, it is hard to find information on Abigail MacBride Allen. This is true, making the fact that Wikipedia identifies her all the more valuable. She is not notable because of her father's presidency run, he states. Also true, but the Laura Ingalls Wilder connection is. The connection to McBride the presidential candidate is an interesting aside.
A final point I would like to make is that I am concerned about Johnpacklambert's motives. I have had resistance in the past from Abigail MacBride Allen about identifying her. Is he related? Has he been asked to challenge this? We must not let Wikipedia be altered due to editors being unduly influenced to protect/anonymize a particular person. And I am certain Wikipedia would not stand for any kind of censorship. The article should remain as is. Chuck Mall 19:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The above fails the rule of assume good faith. My closest connection to Abigail MacBride Allen is that when I was little (up until maybe age 7, but I might not have been that old), my neighbor kitty corner across the street was a Mr. Ingalls. He was somehow related to Laura Ingalls Wilder, descending either from a brother or a cousin of her father. He had been on the local County Line School Board, covering parts of both Troy and Sterling Townships, in 1941 when they voted to consolidate with some other local school boards to form Warren Consolidated Schools. That was about 25 years before Sterling Heights, Michigan was made a city. My best guess is that Mr. Ingalls was born about 1905, and was about 80 when he died, which as I said was when I was about 6. So, no, I do not have any close connection to Mrs. Allen. However I would note that Wikipedia does respect the desires of non-public figures who did a few things of very minor note when they want to not have an article on Wikipedia. However as I have said I never have communicated with Mrs. Allen. I did not know she existed before I stumbled upon her article doing a review of all articles in the 1970 birth year category, mainly with the intent of removing those articles in that category for no good reason. Wikipedia is built on reliable, secondary coverage. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make people notable who are not, and we do not have the topic specific expertise to ourselves determine who is and who is not notable, so we follow published works in this manner. My dad read most of the Little House on the Praire Books to us while we were children, mentioning how they connected to our neighbor Mr. Ingalls, I do not think we ever actually made it through "The First Four Years". I knew before today that Mrs. Wilder had a daugther, and I knew that there had been another series written fictionalizing the life of her daughter. Before today I could not have told you who did that, who held the rights to this literary estate, if anyone held the rights to it, if any of these 80-90 year old books were still under copyright, in part because as I mentioned before when a Library Association removed Mrs. Wilder's name from one of their awards, no one in writing articles on it felt a need to hunt down Mrs. Allen and ask her what she thought of the removal of her pseudo-great grandmother's mother's name from the award.Assuming good faith in nominations is wise. I have never had contact with Mrs. Allen (I am not ever sure why her last name is Allen), I created this nomination because Mrs. Allen is not a public figure on a level that would constitute meeting any of the guidelines on notability that Wikipedia has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that on the official Little House on the Prairie website at [14], I can't find one mention of Abigail MacBride Allen anywhere. I would expect that if she, the rights-holder, wanted to publicize herself to Little House fans as the heir, she could do so. But the fact that she doesn't publicize herself there, nor do the people who run the Little House website discuss her on that site, suggests to me that she is a private person and we do not need to have an article about her on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:40, 4 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. Closing earlier per WP:SNOW, (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Badal Barsaat (1975 film)[edit]

Bin Badal Barsaat (1975 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Only one cited source focuses on this subject. Most everything else I could find is a mere mention or inclusion in a database. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 4 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 13:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clark – Vancouver Television[edit]

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

Non-notable cable access channel fails WP:GNG and WP:BCAST. Deprodded in 2018; I attempted to prod, unaware of the previous prod which was removed with the message "Television stations meet the general notability guideline". This isn't a broadcast station or the rare notable local cable channel, however. Raymie (t • c) 04:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 10:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:20, 4 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. Passes WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG with adequate WP:RS (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Terrace[edit]

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

While accomplished, meets neither WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, or WP:NCREATIVE. Onel5969 TT me 13:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough sources to prove she is notable. She is the showrunner of a major show on the Disney channel and is notable as a result.--Historyday01 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:54, 4 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Big God[edit]

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

Non-notable music Dronebogus (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 11:41, 4 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 12:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HandWiki[edit]

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

This page was recently accepted through the AFC process, but the reviewer apparently did not notice that every reference that discusses HandWiki is either posted by HandWiki itself, or by Jwork.org, which according to the article is the org behind the HandWiki project. I've searched I have found no independent reliable sources, so I think this ought to be deleted per WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. MrOllie (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By denying such an obvious resource, we confirm the reason for its existence (a science encyclopedia bigger than Wikipeadia for science topics, cannot be in Wikipedia, because we need a 3rd opinion?). It looks a special case to me. I cannot even find it in any place on Wikipedia (see List_of_online_encyclopedias or Wikipedia:Alternative outlets). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jconwiki (talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:18, 7 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) 21:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Hudson[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:48, 4 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 speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makan Hislop[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:48, 4 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 is a general consensus against deletion, particularly after the relist. While there's no consensus in favor of a merge, it can, of course, be discussed further outside of AFD. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apokolips[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The usual dePROD with no helpful rationale, so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 27 August 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 04:06, 27 August 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 04:06, 27 August 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 04:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 4 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 speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Hinkson[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:54, 4 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. General consensus is that this, while an interesting topic, has not been discussed enough to be notable, seems to be both OR and an essay. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive nomenclature[edit]

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

Not verifiably notable. This essay has been unsourced since its creation in 2006 by an editor who has not edited since 2011, and has been tagged as unsourced since 2007. I came across it while stub-sorting because another editor had labelled it recently as a Stub, which it certainly isn't.

While the phenomenon discussed undoubtedly exists, there is no evidence that it has been recognised as a named entity, or given this name (which does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, while terms such as "retroactive continuity" and "retroactive inhibition" are included). Google search seems only to produce mirrors of this article, including a couple of YouTube videos of the article being read out by computer, and the option to buy a 92-page paperback book of the article for $67.53 from Australian Amazon, but no other use of the term. This suggests that the term has no notability, or indeed existence beyond Wikipedia. The talk page shows a couple of grumbles about the article from 2010 and 2011, but no-one seems to have suggested deleting it until now. Although there is no inter-wiki link in the left sidebar, Wikidata shows that there is a Spanish wikipedia article ... created by apparently the same editor, in April 2009 - one of his only 10 edits on that Wikipedia, 2006-2009.

Some of the content, if sourced, might fit into Anachronism, but that article has no mention of this phenomenon (on a quick scan for "nomenclature" or "name").

It's slightly sad to see an interesting article disappear, but there seem no grounds on which this article ought to be appearing in our encyclopedia. I suggest that the time has come to delete it. PamD 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PamD 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some further searching, I found this source which discusses at some length the use of the name Augustus to describe Rome's first emperor before he was called that, including Virgil's use of the name in relation to the Battle of Actium (4 years before he was called that) and Horace's use of the name in relation to the Battle of Philippi (15 years before he was called that). TompaDompa (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes this is a common thing with the Roman imperial people, they're often known best by a single name but had many during their life (and a lot of the time some of their names were also the exact names of at least one of their relatives, which leads to a heap of confusion, hence why historians tend to stick with their best known name even if its anachronistic).★Trekker (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 4 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 speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judah Hernandez[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:54, 4 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 speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neveal Hackshaw[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:44, 4 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 speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Dillon[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 4 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 speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean de Silva[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:32, 4 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 speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Norville[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 4 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 speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Noreiga[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:46, 4 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 speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Noel[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:48, 4 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 speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Oliver[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:43, 4 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony O'Garro[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on below - looks like my reading of FPL was wrong and he does indeed met NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - now passes NFOOTY Spiderone 17:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, doesn't pass NFOOTY or GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: might be eligible for 'speedy keep' as the nominator has voted keep Spiderone 10:42, 8 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) 13:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then She Was Gone[edit]

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

Non notable short film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. No full length reviews. Simply promotion from one of multiple SPAs dedicated to promotion the director. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:46, 6 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) 21:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Peltier[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:41, 4 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) IceWelder [✉] 10:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanne Group[edit]

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

The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The three non-primary sources presently used are already WP:RUNOFTHEMILL articles rehashing press releases. A WP:BEFORE resulted in no source that could match GNG's "significant coverage" requirement. Furthermore, half of the article is unsourced and written non-neutrally. IceWelder [✉] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is company listed on the London Stock Exchange; it is part of the FTSE 250 Index and has some 1,800 employees. See WP:LISTED. But I agree it could be improved and expanded. Dormskirk (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dormskirk, the section reads:

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations ... are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above.

(emphasis mine)
The company might be on the LSE, but there are no sources that could be found at a glance that provide independent analyses of the business, as opposed to the press release rehashes (WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:NEWSORG) that are currently used in the article. Listed status and employee count alone do not make for notability. IceWelder [✉] 11:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but the fact that it is a significant company means that we should try all the harder to find some material which would be useful to the reader. I have added a bit and am working to find more. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have trawled through some of the independent analysts' comments and although I have reflected some of the material, I have no wish to turn this article into an advert for the company. However, there was some criticism of signing up shareholders secretly, the high floatation costs and poor succession planning all which I have added. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have improved the article (there are now some 16 reliable sources) please can we get the nomination withdrawn? I don't believe there there is any need to emphasis in WP:LISTED but if there is, my emphasis would be as follows:

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations ... are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above.

Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work. I cannot speak for the reliability of each source, but the sheer amount seems to satisfy a bare minimum for GNG. Withdrawing... IceWelder [✉] 10:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for dealing with this so professionally. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:27, 5 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 speedy keep. No valid reason given for deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Pacheco[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:41, 4 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 speedy keep. No reason given for nomination Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Atiba Charles[edit]

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

Arunjithp (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Arunjithp (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:44, 4 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 12:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Franks[edit]

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

wife of Jethro Tull frontman Ian Anderson, but doesnt seem very notable in her own right Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 5 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 Emmanuelle in Space. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Michael Robinson[edit]

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

Non notable actor. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, secondary, substantial sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 10:01, 4 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. Sandstein 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of M-1 Global events[edit]

List of M-1 Global events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could be merged to M-1#List of Recent and Upcoming M-1 Global events as an ATD, but I think that would make the article too long. Recent ones are already covered there, so this is partially a duplicate. This doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 11:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:58, 4 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 15:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Center NYC[edit]

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

basement store no more notable than any other walk-in store in NYC. does not pass GNG. Sources primarily about Stockman, (like e.g. the Texas Tribune source) only mention the center in passing. Sources like IBTimes are unreliable. The UCLA source only mentions the center in passing in two sentences. the mention in Reason Magazine is just a short three minute snippet, it is not significant coverage. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 11:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem to pass WP:NCORP to merit its own article. Graywalls (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:58, 4 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 Compassion & Choices. And/or elsewhere as desired. Sandstein 20:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compassion & Choices of Oregon[edit]

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

WP:NORG failure. Graywalls (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
response @Valfontis:, and I'm not so sure if the target on its own meets WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:57, 4 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 is consensus he is notable, at minimum, for his work in academia. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Canova[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, no notability except in connection with multiple failed political campaigns HouseOfChange (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(footnote that Quidster4040 is the creator of the article.) Please cite 2 or 3 examples of coverage unrelated to his failed campaigns. Is there anything post-2016 aside from embarrassing Seth Rich speculation? HouseOfChange (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NPROF specifies a "major" institution, i.e. implies rank well above the 50% percentile. Although Chapman did better than his current employer, which apparently lies somewhere between #148 and #194. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me, a "major" institution, in the US context, is an R1 or R2 university, which includes Chapman.--User:Namiba 17:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF specifies: "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity." If our benchmark for excellence is as low as Chapman's research ranking of R2 or the 111/198 ranking of its law school, then our benchmark for excellence is very low. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kj cheetham: and Paisarepa Both Chapman (scoring 48/100) and its law school (ranked # 111th of 198 law schools) rank BELOW the median level of quality. NPROF specifies a "major" institution. Would any RS call Chapman a "major" institution? HouseOfChange (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that every ABA-accredited law school is a major institution. "Major" and "better than average" are in no way equivalent concepts. Would you argue that the Gorilla Monsoon Professor of Folding-Chair Throwing at Vince and Linda's Wrestling College is "major" because it's better than its one competitor? That Dartmouth isn't a major institution because it's below average quality in the Ivy League? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So many straw men, jammed in so closely together! Did anyone claim that "'Major and 'better than average' are equivalent"? No. Did anyone raise the topic of what it would mean to be above or below the "average" of a tiny unrepresentative group? No. Also, and importantly, "median" doesn't mean the same thing as "average." Chapman is below the median for all law schools rated by US News -- not because someone took an average of law school "quality" and Chapman had less -- but because when ranking all law schools from the best down to the worst, more than half of all law schools are better than Chapman. (And fewer than half of all law schools are worse than Chapman.) Being below the median of a large representative group of one's peers is not exactly a position of honor. This does not imply that a law school at or barely above the median would be "major" in the sense of having "a reputation for excellence or selectivity." HouseOfChange (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to weak keep as less confident about it now, but still a keep. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting NPROF: "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity." That is a higher bar than accreditation. The "extensive national coverage in 2016" was for Sanders v Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not for Tim Canova. Redirecting his name to the 2016 Senate election (and adding more specific info if needed to DWS's article) loses nothing of value to our readers. (Do we have an article that covers Sanders v Clinton proxies in local races? That could be interesting and useful, I think.) Responding to IDONTLIKEIT, this nomination is not about Tim Canova's politics but about his notability. I argued to keep Marquita Bradshaw and Saikat Chakrabarti in Wikipedia, because MB is notable and SC is notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're just talking nonsense. There's no disputing that the subject received enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. It's IDONTLIKEIT to nevertheless deny notability without a principled, generally applied reason -- which is conspicuously absent here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: You say there's "no disputing" TC passed GNG. I am not the only person here disputing that he passes GNG. The principled, generally applied reason I gave when I nominated this article for AfD: "Fails WP:NPOL, no notability except in connection with multiple failed political campaigns." If you disagree, give URLs of 3 independent in-depth RS that are not "in connection with multiple failed political campaigns." (And The Intercept is not an independent RS when promoting a Sanders-backed candidate.) HouseOfChange (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have a much better idea. You, @HouseOfChange:, should stop talking until you understand the GNG and stop arguing that a failed proposal to modify notability guidelines should inexplicably be enforced. The GNG has exactly nothing excluding coverage related to "failed political campaigns". Not one fracking word. Exactly the same is true of NPOL. Not only that, the attempt to add that standard to NPOL in a recent RFC has gone down in flames, meeting overwhelming opposition while receiving minimal support. And it's fracking uncivil of you to issue demands that other editors comply with your policy delusions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Multiple editors in many AfDs have said that routine coverage of a failed political campaign is not equivalent to the kind of press interest that rises to GNG. For example Bearcat:"the fact that some routine local campaign coverage happens to exist is not a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL: every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of local campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always get the exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore." Can you link to an RfC where that sensible idea was rejected? I still have not seen "multiple independent" in-depth interest in Time Canova, even within the 2016 campaign coverage. And I take it you have given up your claim that Chapman Law School is a "major institution" as described by our policy. I am glad to hear you dislike behavior that is "fracking uncivil" and hope you will apply that standard to your own contributions. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who the hell cares? Editors present lots of lousy, non-policy/guideline-based arguments in AFDs all the time, just like you do here. And why you need assistance in finding the relevant RFC, when it's in plain view on the NPOL talk page, I have no alternative but to ascribe to the arrogance of indolence. You also never responded to my substantive argument about what constitutes a major institution, preferring to repeat your original position, unsupported by policy language. Arguing that a school with a Nobel laureate on its faculty must be minor strikes me as insensible. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: If you missed my earlier policy citation, NPROF defines what it means by a "major" institution: "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity." Considering what a high bar NPROF sets with the other 8 possible criteria e.g. "a highly prestigious academic award at a national or international level," it is unlikely they intended to drop the bar so low as Chapman Law School when specifying a chair at a "major institution." Having antique Nobel laureates on the faculty is associated with a wealthy institution, not necessarily one that has a reputation for excellence or selectivity. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You created an article in 2018 about Gina Ortiz Jones, who had won the Democratic nomination for Congress and subsequently lost.[22] She is trying again this year. While her campaign received local coverage, it was not covered in national media. Even though she got further along in the process than Canova, just being nominated does not guarantee notability per WP:POL. Why do you think she is notable, while someone who received far more media attention is not? The main difference I see is that Canova took on the party establishment while they supported Jones. But that's why he received more coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @The Four Deuces: for another example, of which you can see more in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gina_Ortiz_Jones. Jones herself, not the race she had run in, met the criterion of 'A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists' described in Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#cite_note-note6-8. Unlike Canova, where "running against DWS" got significant coverage, in the case of Jones it was SHE, the candidate, who got significant coverage for being an unusual candidate of particular interest, in (among others, and talking only about sources I found in 2018) Harvard Political Review, Huffpo, Ozy (magazine), ABS-CBN, news stories that include long quotes from the subject and in-depth material about her life, with shorter articles in Teen Vogue, and Time Magazine.[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] If there were similar number and focus of stories in-depth about Tim Canova, I would not have nominated this article for AfD. IMO, the GNG exception to NPOL is when a CANDIDATE is notable separately from his/her campaign, not when one got multiply mentioned in the context of a notable contest. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any real difference. Take your reference to "U.S. Rep. Will Hurd gets first major Democratic challenger for 2018" in the Texas Tribune. It's a brief article in a local paper saying that Jones is challenging Hurd. There are numerous articles about Canova challenging DWS. Your article from ABS-CBN is an opinion piece,[38] which cannot be used to establish notability. Meanwhile, Canova has received in depth coverage for example in the Miami New Times ("Inside Tim Canova's Bernie-Fueled Bid to Upset U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz".) Also, the focus of the coverage on articles about Jones is her sexuality, with little or no coverage of her political views, which is an important element in biographies of politicians. And it goes over the jobs she has held without saying what she accomplished in them. Accomplishments are also a major part of any biography. You could say that Jones is notable because she is a lesbian challenging a conservative Republican in Texas, while Canova is notable because he was a progressive challenging an establishment Democrat in Florida. TFD (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is not in routine local coverage, which both got. The difference is national interest in GOJ's unusual characteristics. She did not get national coverage as "a lesbian." HuffPo and TeenVogue were inspired by her hardscrabble background ("A first-generation American, Ortiz Jones and her sister, who is currently serving in the navy, were raised by a single mother who worked multiple jobs after emigrating from the Philippines."[39], "Trump’s plans to gut education and housing aid hit too close to home for Jones, as someone who relied on reduced-cost school lunches and subsidized housing when she was a kid being raised by a single mom in San Antonio."[40]) HarvardPolitics and emphasized the role of her military career as "a path to the American Dream."("For Gina Ortiz Jones, the military was more than just a career...Ortiz Jones won an ROTC scholarship to study at Boston University; after graduation, she served a total of more than 15 years in the U.S. Air Force and the national security sector." [41]) Despite much more coverage than TC ever got, GOJ's first AfD closed as No Consensus and the second closed as "Redirect." (although Sandstein restored the article in June 2018.) Clearly GOJ got more coverage and more widespread GNG-caliber coverage than TC, and yet GOJ was not a slam-dunk "Keep." Neither is TC a slam-dunk GNG Keep, and I would like to see examples of in-depth coverage of TC rather than examples of routine local coverage of GOJ. That one local article cited by TFD is one in-depth example, although very closely tied to the a single campaign. For GNG, TC would need two more. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost a requirement for U.S. politicians to have hard-scrabble backgrounds or service in the armed forces. Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden, Harris - all claim hard-scrabble backgrounds. TFD (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sophisticated political insight. My point was multiple RS covered GOJ for multiple reasons; this was in response to your suggestion that being "a lesbian" was her only notable feature. But let's get back to the topic of whether or not Tim Canova passes GNG, where are some in-depth sources supporting GNG? HouseOfChange (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You said that HuffPost and TeenVogue were inspired by her hardscrabble background, not her sexuality. But the HuffPost article says in the title, "Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones would be the first lesbian, Iraq War vet and Filipina-American to fill a U.S. House seat in Texas."[42] Similarly, TeenVogue says in the title, "If elected, Ortiz Jones would be the first openly gay Congresswoman of color from Texas."[43] TFD (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC) (Striking the part of your comment where you attribute to me a claim I did not make. To say that they were inspired by X is not equivalent to saying they failed to mention Y.) HouseOfChange (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: Let's set aside GOJ, saying merely that national-level coverage of GOJ was much more than the national-level coverage of TC. (The national-level coverage of DWS in 2016 was probably more than the national-level coverage of GOJ.) But the topic here is the claim that TC meets GNG, for which we need two more independent sources that are in-depth about TC. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange: Here are two: [44] and [45], plus a recent mention establishing some enduring notability: [46] Js2112 (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Js2112: Thank you for your courteous addition of information. (Although the Bernie-boosting, Hillary-hating New Republic is hardly an "independent" source per GNG.) So, if profiles by partisan boosters plus campaign coverage suffice to make failed candidates "notable," as others have claimed, then you have established that Canova does reach to that bar. In my opinion, the 2016 campaign created very temporary interest in Canova--and aside from that BLP1E he remains not notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Canova received far more national coverage. More importantly, they were not just Human interest stories like the TeenVogue article about Jones, but discussed his political views, which is important in articles about politicians. TFD (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still no links to in-depth coverage of Tim Canova? HouseOfChange (talk) 15:39, 11 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Pointe Tower[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILD. The claim about being the first skyscraper in South Beach is unsourced, as are the claims of notable residents. Even if these were true, I don't think they'd confer notability on the building. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed I did the original tagging for notability and sources. Couldn't this information be in South Beach before it gets separated as its own article? I'm surprised there's not a separate section about the architecture along with the history. I have been noticing several articles for Florida skyscrapers can be one-two sentence stubs. I know stubs are cheap but still... – The Grid (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:48, 4 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kismat 2[edit]

Kismat 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, nothing except youtube videos and film database sites showing up in a WP:BEFORE search. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kismat (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:43, 4 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 12:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kashana Home[edit]

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

An article that is about a WP:NORG failing organization that is only covered in the context of one event which fails WP:NEVENT. W42 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. W42 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. W42 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:43, 4 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George S. Elrick[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. There is an obit in the Chicago Tribune ([47]) but that's all the sustained coverage I could find and since he was from Chicagoland it's arguably local coverage. Not to be confused with George Elrick. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:38, 4 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. Interviews are generally not considered sources which establish notability. However, there is clearly enough dissension that closing as delete would not be appropriate. No prejudice to a renomination in hopes for a broader discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasandra Nyker[edit]

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

I prodded this with "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 (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." The article has been expanded since, but I am afraid this still fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject received a minor award and is a CEO of a minor company, the coverage is in passing and not in-depth or is obviously written by the subject or her representatives like the bio-blurb at [48] (a site of a company she works for). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the additional criteria in WP:ANYBIO, I believe that applicability of point 1 could be debated, depending if the awards are "minor" or not. Perhaps grounds for point 2 ("a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field") are stronger, with the specific field being the renewable energy industry in Africa. Not sure about the historical record though, maybe too soon to tell. But in anycase, the additional criteria is not mandatory, but can help to a degree. (This is to ensure parsing by the AfD stats bot. My iVote is Keep ) Alan Islas (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim 17:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was wary about placing weight on an interview. But, in this case, it's from one of the world's largest and most respected news organizations. Concerns we'd ordinarily have about a publicist getting free advertising from a periodical through an interview do not appear relevant when we're talking about the BBC. I see no particular reason why a video from a respected news organization should not be used as a source, although I agree that it's not fantastic. In sum, I read the fact that she was interviewed by the BBC as an indication that a reliable, third party media organization thought she and her work were sufficiently important to devote a substantial segment to. But, again, I agree that it's not a great source—hence why my keep is still weak. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:10, 4 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 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania#District 17. The arguments for notability as a politician are weak. The arguments for keeping as an author are stronger, but there's still rough consensus that he's not quite over the threshold of notability independent from his book. The "redirect" closure recognizes this. Editors are free to change the redirect target to the book if there's consensus for that. Sandstein 10:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Parnell (Pennsylvania politician)[edit]

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

PROD declined. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. He spoke at the 2020 Republican National Convention last night, but that's not a notability criteria. He's an underdog in the November general election. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I DISAGREE. We should at least wait until after the election to decide whether or not to delete this page. After all, if he gets elected then he will be notable enough that we'd just have to recreate this page if it's deleted. - Seanr451 (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. If he's elected, then he gets a page. He doesn't get one as a candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he "needs one" per se, just that I see a plausible notability argument being made under WP:AUTHOR rather than WP:POLITICIAN. Some merging could take place, too. Maybe there should be a Sean Parnell article but no Outlaw Platoon article, for instance. I'm not totally convinced but think this is a more complex case than the usual WP:POLOUTCOMES, where I almost always vote to merge into the relevant election article. Marquardtika (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair point. I personally see AUTHOR#3 as overly vague and problematic. In a case like this, I don't see why the book and the author should both have articles if the notability is only based on this one book. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I’m sorry but I don’t know how to do this... I’ll read all the primers when I get back to my desktop and can also log an account. The fact the ADMIN writes “underdog” shows bias right there, and the fact he requested deletion just hours after the RNC speech is suspicious, sorry. I saw the speech, a day later heard something on-air so decided to google sean parnell, and couldn’t find a wiki page. The fact that he was a scheduled 5min speaker, when AOC only got a minute, he wasn’t some fly-by video testimonial, and his speech was indeed about inclusiveness, something this ADMIN deleted in his biased showing of non-inclusiveness. I respect the ADMIN’s Grand Wizard wiki mod-status but please stick to sticks & balls... (again MY APOlOGIES for newbie errors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7400:66CA:4588:D34A:1923:3AA1 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OMG comment above is from me. Question,,, as part of my update that Sean is a relevant topic given his speech at the RNC Convention, I also tried to include a link to the PBS video and the aforementioned one-sentence description of the speech. Question to the Admin making changes, If a link and "approved" description of OutLaw Platoon can be included, why can't a link and description of his speech? Lastly, the webform said article "edits" were not required to have a summary of changes, so I didn't on three subsequent small edits correcting name and some character deletions which for some reason the Admin didn't seem to appreciate (about to read primers now but adhd is already kicking in at the prospect,,, :( LucaGrauman (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a consensus forming that the subject does not meet WP:NPOL, but is he notable as an author?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An important piece of Bearcat's argument is nod only made up, but has recently been rejected by the community. There's a recent RFC on modifying NPOL to incorporate the "independently of their candidacy" standard, and that proposal has gone down in flames, meeting broad opposition while gathering no more than token support. When such a proposal has been clearly rejected by the community, it's very hard to see why a good faith user would present it as though it were part of a policy or guideline. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:19, 12 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. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbo Ka Beta[edit]

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

Previously WP:PRODded and PROD withdrawn. An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMdb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search failed to find even so much as the plot, which the article lacks. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 4 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. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cami Dalton[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. The two reviews are by defunct and apparently unreliable sources, and the award for which she (he?) was nominated is from Reviewers International, for which I can find no trace. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:56, 4 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs previously broadcast by 2nd Avenue[edit]

List of programs previously broadcast by 2nd Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A programming list of syndicated non orignial programming. Fails WP:LISTN, WP:NTELEVISION. Meets WP:NOTTVGUIDE   // Timothy :: talk  04:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 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 Adam Maxwell. Redirect as WP:ATD. If the author is not notable, we can discuss that at a separate AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dial 'M' for Monkey (short story collection)[edit]

Dial 'M' for Monkey (short story collection) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a book that does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. MapleSoy (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MapleSoy (talk) 04:08, 4 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. Tone 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O Garaxe Hermético[edit]

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

This private school with no evidence of coverage or being accredited or such seems to fail WP:NORG. Previously prodded by User:PKT in 2012, deprodded by the creator, hasn't been improved since. Other languages are a bit longer but not much and the coverage is either missing or, from what I can Google Translate, very sparse too. Can this be rescued? Also, the biography of the school creator, Kiko da Silva looks very bad but it, at least, has better interwikis (if anyone here speaks Spanish etc. and would care to comment on whether that bio should stay or if it needs its own AfD, that would be appreciated too). But as for this school, at best, I think we could redirect it to his bio? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:28, 4 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yixi Chen[edit]

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

It is conceivable that his company is notable, but clear that he individually not. 30 under 30 is a pr award, and does not indicate even importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 4 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. That's a hell of a thorough nom statement, and zero opposition to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drishtipat[edit]

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

One of over a million charities in the US.[53] Human rights in Bangladesh is a worthy cause, but that doesn't make the charity notable.

Of the cited sources, only Star Weekend Magazine is significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source. The Christian Science Monitor contains only one sentence about Drishtipat, which profiled itself (note the use of "our" and "we") and responded to facile interview questions in Culture Connect, the magazine that is the main subject of the CSM article. The Daily Star doesn't mention Drishtipat. The remaining four sources are written by Drishtipat or its executive director, Asif Saleh. (Coincidentally, the Wikipedia article was written by an Asifsaleh.)

Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, and ProQuest, found brief mentions, but only one other piece of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source: India West published an article on 8 February 2002 about a fundraiser in the San Francisco Bay Area, attended by about 200 people, that raised $9,000.

Drishtipat's tax exempt status was revoked in 2014 for failure to file tax forms for three consecutive years.[54] Its 2010 filing showed revenue of about $54,000. By contrast, notable human rights charities Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International respectively reported revenue of $42 million and $37 million that year. It seems Drishtipat never got big enough to attract significant attention by the world at large.

Promotional article containing much unsourced content about a well-meaning but non-notable organization. -- Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threespheres[edit]

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

1) Fails WP:NOTABILITY, 2) the history section is just a quote (the link to which is dead), 3) a before search turned up zero sources, 4) the official page link under external links is dead. Kingdom(Hearts)Come (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kingdom(Hearts)Come (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kingdom(Hearts)Come (talk) 00:52, 4 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.
More