The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Jess[edit]

Marilyn Jess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Porn actress deleted at afd created with entirely unsuitable sources. Fails ent and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since admissibility is based on the nature of the subject and not on the quality of the source. Jess is with Lahaie the best known French porn actresses from the 80s. Hektor (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just asserting this person is "best known x" is not enough. You have to show actual reliable sources that will lead to passing of GNG. Wikipedia is built on actual sources, and none have been presented that would lead to passing GNG, so we need to delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sources are too poor and claiming she is the best known French porn star of her day sounds like gossip because it can’t be verified. Trillfendi (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

your answer just show that Wikipedia is Us centric and porn actors from other countries have a higher notability threshold to cross. Her most famous film of the 80s has just been rereleased in Blu ray just on her name. LA FEMME OBJET : re-édition d'un film mythique qui réconcilie fesses et SF Which porn actor from the 80s in the Us could say that. Hektor (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hektor: Porn actors have it rough here, period. It’s hard enough finding suitable sources without venturing into Reality Kings. Nobody cares who came from Timbuktu or Philadelphia, notability is the same for everyone, everywhere on here. The PORNBIO notability subject was deprecated, not even winning an AVN award is good enough anymore. If Marilyn Jess had as important a career as you allege you would’ve edited it accordingly. But you haven’t. Trillfendi (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rough translation: A word also on the heroine, Marilyn Jess?

Before this film, Marylin was a young actress who hadn't shot much. Instantly, as soon as the movie came out, she became the new porn star, Brigitte Lahaie having just hung up. Her temper was completely different from Brigitte's, because Marylin was more mischievous, more mischievous and jovial. He's someone we see laughing a lot in the movies, but not in LA FEMME OBJET. The funny thing is that the movie that made her famous doesn't match her character at all. It was a real compositional role for her because she doesn't speak, she has very few expressions. She will remain the undisputed star of X until the end of her career, in 1986.

• Comment FWIW: "Brigitte Lahaie, Marilyn Jess and Clara Morgane are probably the top three French pornstars ever."^[1] "...and was introduced to one of the biggest stars of French porn cinema from the ’70s and ’80s, Marilyn Jess."^[2] "Marilyn Jess and with Olinka [two actresses who were well known in the 1970s and 1980s]"^[3] "During hardcore cinema's second wave of popularity in late 1970s, French stars such as Brigitte Lahaie and Marilyn Jess, American stars such as Vanessa Del Rio, Annette Haven, and Leslie Bovee, and Danish porn power couple Bent and Bir Warburg were crucial to the financing and successful international distribution of theatrical porn films." ^[4]

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Laadli Main[edit]

Teri Laadli Main (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Future television show that does not satisfy television notability. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article on this show has already been moved from article space to draft space once, and so cannot be moved to draft space again. Draft space is the right place for it until it airs. Naïve Google search shows that the show is planned, which is what this article says, and consists mainly of advance notices about the show, which is what would be expected. There is nothing that satisfies general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speed delete or move the article to draft. Not yet notable. The show is yet to be live/on-air. Thanks --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 11:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per rationale by Robert McClenon. Celestina007 (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep– As per latest sources of the channel [1] (this is the official Youtube Channel of Star Bharat), the show Teri Laadli Main, will go on-air from tomorrow 5th January 2021, at 8:00 P.M IST on Star Bharat [2][3]--Aleyamma38 (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This show is new for Star Bharat Channel and will be on-air from today onwards. BubblySnow (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The series has been premiered. Therefore, not a case of crystal ball. However, it still needs some more sources. Empire AS ^Talk! 17:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is not mandatory that we need to remain confined only to the nomination rationale. Though the show has been premiered, it is still WP:TOOSOON. Being premiered is not a criteria of notability plus we need WP:SIGCOV. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated references The references of the article Teri Laadli Main have been updated to fulfill WP:SIGCOV --Aleyamma38 (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article Teri Laadli Main is no more a case of Wikipedia:NCRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Plus, the recent developments in the reference section of Teri Laadli Main makes it fulfill WP:SIGCOV. Hence, the article Teri Laadli Main fulfills all the requirements of an article of Wikipedia Mainspace.--Aleyamma38 (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The nomination is based on the show not being on the air yet. The show is now on the air, and WP:NTV suggests that broadcast shows on national TV are generally kept. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The series has been premiered. Not a crystal ball case. Empire AS ^Talk! 07:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anoshirvan Taghavi[edit]

Anoshirvan Taghavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I failed to find any significant reliable coverage online. Fails GNG and other relevant subjective notability criteria, I have checked all sources in Farsi, there are mentions of him as a participant of a music band in a concerts, the only source about him is one that he has been hospitalized in a hospital. Mardetanha (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Non-US musicians must be evaluated based on popularity in their own countries. Based on his collaborations with other artists that are popular (which have Wiki pages), he meets criteria #6 of WP:MUSICBIO. there is also significant coverage in Persian publications. Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, creator blocked as a confirmed spammer based on off-wiki evidence. MER-C 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - subject does not meet WP:MUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC Spiderone 21:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I based my vote on significant coverage is in farsnews.ir and mehrnews.ir. These are both major Persian publications, but also he meets criteria #6 of WP:MUSICBIO due to his collaborations with other major Persian artist, as they have their own wiki pages too, so it could be assumed collaborations are with popular artists. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage, as I have stated in my nomination, there is a single source which is about him and that is the one which says he underwent surgery and was in the hospital, that's all Mardetanha (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even if he was covered in major Persian publications, those still have to have significant information beyond basic press releases and brief announcements. Under both his Persian and English names, all else to be found are promotional sites and minor social media chatter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The claim above, "Non-US musicians must be evaluated based on popularity in their own countries" directly contradicts what WP:N states about popularity. Nothing in the article, aobve, or in BEFORE show WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Promotions and press releases do not establish notability and BLP articles should strictly follow WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   02:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Owens[edit]

Doug Owens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Just the usual political coverage one would expect. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Owens passes WP:NPOL, actually. He was elected this past November to the Utah House of Representatives. NPOL includes Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Member of the Utah House of Representatives. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree: as a member of the Utah House of Representatives, Owens passes WP:NPOL.--Thelema12 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdawn by nominator. 22:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

888 16th St NW[edit]

888 16th St NW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems to fail WP:NBUILDING, only sources I can find say "X moved here", along with some real estate listing sites. DarthFlappy 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DarthFlappy 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. DarthFlappy 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I can find lots of local interest in the Trammell Crow refurb of a year or so ago, but as for the original building I found but one book reference which was not in depth. The MPA likes to assert that a lot historic happened there, but nobody else seems to care much about them. I don't get the impression that anyone from outside the immediate area cares much. Mangoe (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - run of the mill building of ordinary, banal architecture that once had an important tenant. Ho hum. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not important, few sources. Scrooge200 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of colors: N–R[edit]

List of colors: N–R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. By title, a partial duplication of List of colors: N–Z. By development, an immature draft (see history: created as Draft Oct 2018; from Draft to Mainspace Nov 2019 by a different editor, while no sourcing improvement edits have been made ever). While, when editing these color lists, the strong red edit warning says: new colors added should have wikilink+source. So just "Merge" would leave other editors the burden of having to check each entry. In short: a drafting excercise went out of hand. DePiep (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Below, creator Ahecht describes the creation background and that clarifies all. Good to learn it's not that complicated. Snow? -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sure why Cassiopeia moved this to mainspace. I developed it (and Draft:List of colors: S–Z) as forks of List of colors: N–Z when that page was exceeding the WP:PEIS limit and looked like it needed to be split, but that was resolved by removing unsourced entries instead. I had just assumed that they would both be G13'd eventually. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I understand ;-) -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. Daniel (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survival of the Idiots[edit]

Survival of the Idiots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

ALLPLOT episode article with no chance of passing GNG. Also, the plot is copied from the fandom wiki. Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kingsif's assessment of the article was true one month ago, when it was PROD'ed originally. However, I have since improved the article to make it pass through standards. The article is far from WP:ALLPLOT. I encourage everyone to improve the article.--Kieran207 talk 03:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, yes, IMDb user reviews. Read WP:GNG, please. When the only content of substance is plot, it's basically ALLPLOT, anyway. There's no sources to improve it with, or I'm sure you'd have and added them all. Give it up, dude. Kingsif (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been trying to get this article deleted for almost one month. And although your opinion hasn't changed, the article has. The article now has more sourcing, more than just the plot, and indication of importance. And despite your opinion, the article continues to show large improvements. Few of your claims against this article hold up. "The plot was copied from fandom wiki" So? The plot for Friend or Foe is also copied from the Fandom wiki, Go ahead and nominate that one for deletion will ya? And i'm sure the article passes GNG, it might not overachieve it, but it passes it.--Kieran207 talk 20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. I waited a month to see if it improved, it's not like I've been commenting on the talkpage every day that it should go. The article has changed, but it doesn't meet GNG. It has refs to confirm the episode 1. exists, 2. aired on TV, 3. was released on a season DVD. None of these confer notability. It then has refs to say it has an IMDb score, and appears on an IMDb fan list. Please see Wikipedia:IMDBREF as to why those are unacceptable. There are then 2 refs from media sources that have ranked all Spongebob episodes; this is basically, again, saying "this exists" (in this case, per INDISCRIMINATE). When your article's best source is Screen Rant, there's a problem. The most recent additions are three sentences that wildly misrepresent the coverage in their sources: The episode is perhaps most commonly remembered for the "I'm Dirty Dan!" line, which is considered to be one of the show's most iconic lines. The "I'm Dirty Dan!" line also has become a large Meme in popular culture. Most notably during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. - the sources for the first sentence say that this line in the episode is memorable, when discussing, again, all of Spongebob. The source for second and third just includes this line on an indiscriminate list of Hurrican Sandy memes: so the second sentence is unsourced and the third says "notable" when the source doesn't reflect that. There's also no reason that such coverage couldn't be given at a "Spongebob memes" article or section. The fact is, this episode has no coverage that is more than a passing mention, and even only gets a passing mention in three RS's. And that's clearly scraping the barrel. If you think that meets GNG then I encourage you to stop creating articles. The mention of copying the plot from fandom wiki is because, with no other coverage, we are basically hosting something that is suitably covered there. Just let people use fandom wiki for episode details. Kingsif (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Are you proposing for the article to be deleted due to GNG concerns, or a redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes? It's fine to be concerned about the topic's notability, but you are not clear with your nomination rationale. It should be one, or the other. Haleth (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It can be both: GNG concerns that would have it deleted, but since there's an episode list we might as well redirect the title. Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added some more citations,see if it helps.--Kieran207 talk 15:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I helped by doing excessive cleanup to the plot; I agree that this article consists almost entirely of it.66.190.244.82 (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. There are not sources with SIGCOV addressing the topic directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   02:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. There's not enough references to consider the episode 'notable' in anyway. AlexField290 (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Haverhill, Massachusetts#Education. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Square Elementary School[edit]

Walnut Square Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability - I can only find run-of-the-mill coverage. PROD was declined by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see significant coverage. Does not meet notability.Peter303x (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Haverhill, Massachusetts per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N: "Articles on elementary/primary and middle schools are normally blanked and redirected or merged into the school district article (USA) or the appropriate locality article." Since the school district doesn't have it's own article, the municipality's article is the appropriate redirect. Orville^talk 05:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Haverhill, Massachusetts#Education: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage the type schools normally receive. Source in article are not IS. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV. This is a nice, normal, school, not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: t | c | a 06:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a totally non-notable elementary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and WP:TNT; alternately redirect. The stub focuses on trivial details of the original cost of parts of the building, rather than learning or other such important concepts. Antoine de Saint-Exupery is spinning in his grave. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• HELP Instead of having it deleted. I am absolutely garbage with Wikipedia code, and I need HELP to expand the article. The school is 200 years old, and somehow it's not notable? SilentRevisions (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Haverhill, Massachusetts#Education:I agree with others. Notable includes national and international press significance. Elementary schools do not usually have their own page. That is usually reserved for some high schools and universities. There are many historical schools in Massachusetts which would be non-notable. I can help transfer the entire information under the town's education section in a grammar correct format, to honor the school's significance to the local area. BenKlesc (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One Globe Conference[edit]

One Globe Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Spam. WP:TNT it! Geschichte (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - ORES gives this a 37% chance of being spam, but it's pretty clear to see. Kaboom! WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 20:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Most likely UPE spam. RationalPuff (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly spam. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - blatant misuse of Wikipedia Spiderone 09:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isis Adventure[edit]

Isis Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not enough coverage in secondary sources; I've only found a Boing Boing review and a local news article. Just an expensive puzzle game, and it doesn't seem notable. ~EdGl talk 19:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 19:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 19:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-04 ✗ deleted

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Michigan Honors Program[edit]

University of Michigan Honors Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Initial PROD removed by creator. Hasn't had any independent editing since then and there's no evidence to be found that this is a notable honors program. Would have just re-directed to the university but editor who removed second (accidental, I presume) PROD recommended AfD, so here we are. StarM 18:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. StarM 18:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy @Explicit and Piotrus: StarM 18:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of Michigan. Mccapra (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of Michigan as Mccapra suggests. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of Michigan is a suitable target. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to University of Michigan per above.  // Timothy :: t | c | a 06:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Thanks for the ping, I stand by my prod rationale, this fails GNG. I see little need to redirect, most universities have Honors Programs and anyway the term isn't even mentioned at the proposed redirect (UoM), making the redirect a weird WP:EASTEREGG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we need something more than the article subject's own page to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Piotrus. No redirect seems necessary; redirecting back to University of Michigan seems pointless, especially if there is no section about the "Honors Program" in the main article. —Notorious4life (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even worth redirecting; every university and college has one. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Radovanović[edit]

Boris Radovanović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The most trivial passing of WP:NFOOTBALL that I have ever seen; he came onto the pitch and played less than one minute of professional football. This was to be his only appearance. Whilst I am aware that passing NFOOTBALL was enough at the time to have an article, there are now almost 100 AfD discussions that say that a borderline pass, which this clearly is, is not enough on its own. Please note that his two alleged appearances for HŠK Posušje do not count towards NFOOTBALL as the Bosnian league was not professional back then.

In terms of WP:GNG, this article does nothing and this article has four sentences about him, which basically confirm what we already know. He played one minute. He never played again. He got released. Spiderone 18:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not truly meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As best I can tell this is currently an unsourced biography of a living person, which is something we absolutely do not allow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 22:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amirul Shafik Che Soh[edit]

Amirul Shafik Che Soh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I reverted some unsourced edits to this and realised that the player does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL; appearances for Kelantan, even if correct, would not qualify him as Kelantan were playing in the second tier in 2019 and 2020. Coverage of him is trivial, including on Goal.com, Malaysian Metro and Malay Mail. Does not look to pass WP:GNG, which is the bare minimum guideline for footballers that don't pass NFOOTBALL. Spiderone 17:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - zero professional appearances according to Soccerway, Besoccer, Tribuna, Johor and Maisfutebol. Spiderone 17:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 22:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whacking this despite the low turnout per BLP. Daniel (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veenu Paliwal[edit]

Veenu Paliwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable amature biker who does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT or WP:BASIC. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable media. Only some coverage related to her death. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whacking this despite the low turnout per BLP. Daniel (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamayu Usman[edit]

Hamayu Usman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

BLP of unelected politician. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because ok he in unelected that is right but Usman was a FOUNDING member of SHEIKH RASHEED'S party Awami Muslim League where he was the central information secretary and then he joined former 2010 World Mayor Prize Winner Syed Mustafa Kamal's party Pak Sarzameen Party (PSP) Also he hosted PSP's Iftar in 2018 which was one of the biggest Iftar arrangements in Pakistan largest city Karachi KaimkhaniKamal (talk) 29 December 2020 (UTC) He is also the current finance secretary of PSP, Sindh's biggest party.

• Delete. Being the founding member of a political party does not create automatic notability per WP:NPOL, and consensus is unlikely to change. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Jain[edit]

Sonia Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable amature biker who does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT or WP:BASIC. The article creator has a single-purpose account, therefore, likely UPE or CoI. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After conducting a WP:BEFORE search the subject does not pass the basic notability requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia as prescribed in WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete social media references and youtube links will not be consider under reliable source PangolinPedia 07:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Lissek[edit]

Leon Lissek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The sourcing is atrocious here, not anywhere near even close to meeting GNG. I also am unconvinced that even one of the roles Lissek had would be considered a significant role in a notable production. I know there are some debates about what is a significant role, well in theory, in practice we seem to just mass create articles on anyone who shows up in cast lists a few times with no thought as to the roles being significant, but these roles are not. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I looked online and found a few possible sources, but his roles have generally been very small for even character actors. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NACTOR asks for Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. While this list gives many roles, none of them are significant roles. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he meets WP:NACTOR. He was the lead in Bloodmoon and had significant roles on The Sullivans and EastEnders (as Bruno di Marco). I'm finding quite a bit of stage work too. The article in its present state, even with my additions, is an incomplete picture of his career. This is often the case in AfDs related to film/television/radio/theatre of the 20th century, especially for prolific actors such as Lissek. It seems fans create articles, but they are not aware of the need to cite sources or they don't know which paywalled databases to access to get the information. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Edit: he has high billing and appears to have been in every episode of Roberts Robots, Tottering Towers, and The Tingaree Affair. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable actor with plenty of notable credits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's had a substantial number of roles according to the BFI Piecesofuk (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DiamondRemley39 and Piecesofuk, meets WP:NACTOR. Deus et lex (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus exists that this article should not exist at this title in this form. Up to the punters more generally if some reference to this is included in one of the seemingly thousands of articles mentioned as possible targets below. Daniel (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agios Nikolaos of Angelokomis[edit]

Agios Nikolaos of Angelokomis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Recently created article on an alleged minor personality of late Byzantine / early Ottoman history, who has recently drawn some attention because a character based on him featured in a popular historical drama series on Turkish TV, but who almost certainly never existed.

According to some early Ottoman chronicles (which the article fails to cite, leaving its factual basis entirely vague), a person called "Aya Nikola" was a "tekfur", i.e. minor Byzantine official, in Inegöl, where he fought against Osman, the founder of the Ottoman dynasty, in the late 13th century. This would barely be enough to make him notable even if it was true. But as is explained in this scholarly treatment (which the article likewise fails to cite), this alleged personality is unlikely to have existed. In particular, this is because no Byzantine could possibly have born this name. "Aya" (rendered here as "agios", i.e. "saint") is supposed to be part of his name, not an actual saint's title. It is entirely impossible for a Byzantine Christian person to be so named (and needless to say, there is no actual saint of that name in the Orthodox church either, apart from the real St Nicholas). As the article cited above demonstrates, "Agios Nikolaos" was almost certainly not the name of any person at that time and place, but simply the local Greek place name of Inegöl itself. The Ottoman chronicles (the earliest of which was written 2 centuries after the events in question) simply got these mixed up. The identification of Inegöl with a place called "Agios Nikolaos" is also independently confirmed here [4].

Apart from the medieval chronicles that invented him, and recent popular reflections based on the TV series, the alleged "Aya Nikola" gets mentioned in a handful of modern Turkish works. I haven't found a single non-Turkish source that takes any note of him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As far as I know we've had a few discussions about fictional characters in Turkish series: they all ended up being deleted. The Dutch page is nominated for deletion too. Obviously these 2 are not reasons for deletion. There are a few Turkish sources mentioning that he fought against Osman in Domanic Battle (couldn't find an English translation for it, so I guess I made my own), like this, but as said by the nominator fighting in a battle alone is not enough for notability. Hürriyet says that he was an important person for the Orthodox people and that there are churches made that have his name. Not confirmed, but I think one of them is Aya Nikola Kilisesi in Istanbul [tr], which makes me think its not a WP:HOAX. There are a few books citing him: this, this and this and there are plenty more. All of them mention roughly the same: his role the Domanic Battle. I don't know what Sabah and Hürriyet base their claims on. I haven't quite looked at the notability guidelines for historical people yet, so I'm only commenting. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 08:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim about the churches is obvious nonsense: there are of course thousands of churches and places called "Aya Nikola" ("Agios Nikolaos"), but each and every one of them is named after the real St Nicholas of Myra – just like the village this guy supposedly administered. The fact that Hurriyet mixes those up just goes to demonstrate they have no idea what they're talking about. Same goes for all the other Turkish newspapers parroting each other in running these kinds of articles about those TV characters and their alleged historical background. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was thinking that too. The books all say about the same: Tekfur of İnegöl, worked together with the Tekfur of Bilecik to fight Osman (a bit more detailed). Let's assume that the sources are true and that he existed. I don't think that the battle would make him notable enough for an article. I think I will go with Delete. If someone finds something else, I would be happy to hear it. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 09:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we know in what sense he "existed": Those medieval Ottoman chronicles do mention him, and all those things the Turkish books reiterate are basically just what's in there. We can of course assume that there would have been some "tekfur" in Inegöl and that Osman fought against him; it's just that we don't know his name. Some Ottoman scribe at some point confused a phrase that meant "the tekfur of Agios Nikolaos" with "the tekfur Agios Nikolaos"; simple as that (cf p.34 here). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On which page of the the Dergipark source is it stated that he doesn't exist? Its 300+ pages. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 13:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 17-35, the article "İnegöl Adının Menşei Üzerine" by Muhammet Tarakçı. In his summary section on p.34 he says "İnegöl tekfurunun adının Aya Nikola olamayacağı ve Âşıkpaşazâde’nin verdiği bilgide bir yanlışlık olduğu ortaya çıkmaktadır" ('we can conclude that the tekfur of Inegöl cannot have been called Aya Nikola and that the information given by Aşıkpaşazâde is erroneous') The details of the argument are on the pages leading up to p.30, which concludes in the statement "Aya Nikola’nın tekfurun değil de, İnegöl şehrinin ismi olması" ("that 'Aya Nikola' wasn't the name of the tekfur, but the name of the town of Inegöl"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Crucially it also says that older sources from the 13th and 14th century don't mention his name but rather say "Tekfur of Inegöl". I'll let the people in the Dutch AfD know. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 14:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve As we all know, he is mentioned in a lot of books about his role in the battles, maybe we can add a biography section explaining them? Turkish news sources can be used alongside the books. Limorina (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • The Turkish news sources are all rubbish, as demonstrated above. Journalists aren't reliable sources about medieval history. And the two or three books are merely uncritically rehashing the story from the old chroniles, without ever critically reflecting their reliability or documenting its factual basis and sources. The only reliable source dealing with him I've seen so far is the one that says he didn't exist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what about this (you may need to scroll down) I found on İslâm Ansiklopedisi? It doesn't mention his name but it talks about the tekfurs of Inegöl and Bilecik and the battles. Limorina (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the point. Tekfur of Inegöl existed, but we are not sure if it was Aya Nikola. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 12:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- Agios means holy, which is the equivalent of saint (from Latin for holy). Tekfur is apparently "governor". I see this person (if not a hoax) as potentially notable, but we need much better sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's the whole point: this person wasn't a saint. If there had been a person considered a saint at that time and place, Byzantine Christian sources would have been written about him. No person in the Orthodox church could possibly become a saint without massive amounts of writing about him in church sources. The Turkish chronicles weren't claiming he was a saint either. They were calling him "aya" as if that was simply part of his name. Which is plainly impossible, as anybody with just the faintest idea about Byzantine culture knows – people simply weren't named like that. It is entirely impossible for a person walking around at that time and place and being called "Aya Nikola" or anything remotely similar to that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that some people at that time, possibly the people living in İnegöl, called him "Aya" because they liked him as a Tekfur? I have a feeling (no source) that his actual name was just Nikola. My argument is pretty weak but I agree that he sounds like a notable person. Limorina (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not possible that people were just calling him "Agios" locally. That's not how "sainthood" works in Christianity. You only become a "saint" after your death, for starters. And if he was actually a notable figure, for his military or political role or any other reason, we'd know about him from Byzantine sources. For one thing, we would know what his actual title and rank was. Keep in mind there was no such job as "tekfur" in reality; it's merely an exonym, the Turkish word for a local official whose actual rank and function in the Byzantine administration the Turks couldn't bother to remember. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what about keeping the article title but changing the content to reflect the points made in this discussion, so that the (presumably numerous) people wanting to know something about him after watching the tv series can learn that there was no such person? Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there was a Tekfur of Inegöl (as per İslâm Ansiklopedisi), it's disputed whether he was called Aya Nikola. Are you suggesting that there be an article about the Tekfur of Inegöl or an article about the fictional character? I don't quite understand what you mean? Limorina (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a tekfur of Inegöl? Yes, maybe, except that we don't know anything about him. Even in the Ottoman chronicles and in the modern works based on them, like the account in Islam Ansiklopedisi you linked to, nothing is said about him except that he was opposed to Osman. He is always mentioned together with other "tekfur"s, of Karacahisar, Bilecik and so on. None of them stands out among the others in any way that would make them notable. They were just minor Byzantine military officers. We don't know their names (the only thing we know is that this one most certainly was not called "Aya Nikola"); we don't know their titles and offices (we only know it most certainly wasn't "tekfur"), we don't know when they were born and died, we don't know what they did. Heck, we don't even know for certain what the place he commanded was called in his time (it was most certainly not "Angelokomis"; that isn't even correct Greek.) Nothing, nada. Nobody would ever dream of writing an article about any of them, if it hadn't been for that TV series. The article we could write about him would have exactly one sentence: There once was some guy who was the Byzantine Greek commander of an insignificant village that is now Inegöl. The End. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject obviously fails to meet the WP:Notability criteria. Nobody seems to be able to expand the article to a suiable length. The name of the article can be made a redirect to somewhere else like İnegöl. That article can mention the subject of this article and give to interested readers that little info avaiable. A note in the end: @Peterkingiron: re what you said that I see this person (if not a hoax) as potentially notable, I think that rules say that if the notability is not clearly established, the article does not have a good reason to stay. Of course, if later someone is able to write a decent article, they are welcome to do so. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there is insufficient evidence in academic lit in history and elsewhere as relevant, then we cannot be sure we are not popularizing a hoax. Should veritable sources arise that would validate this article's contents, that would change things, but we can't idly let ourselves present what is likely disinformation because there is some small chance it *could* be legit -- burden of proof and all.--Calthinus (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What if this article is reworked into an article about the Battle of Domaniç or the Battle of Mount Armenia? Limorina (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Battle of Mount Armenia" was an "insignificant local skirmish", according to the Islam Ensiklopedisi article you cited earlier, so probably not a proper topic for an article. The other battle might be worth a stub, but hardly anything is known about the role of this "tekfur of Inegöl" in it, and in any case there's too little of value in the present article to make preservation of the edit history desirable. There's also no value in preserving a redirect from this specific article title, as it's not a plausible search term – no source, even among those that assume his existence, has ever actually called this guy "Agios Nikolaos", and certainly not "Agios Nikolaos of Angelokomis". Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, since obviously no person with such a name existed, as Fut. Perf. has shown (and as any Greek-speaker would tell you). However, the information about Ashikpashazade reporting a tekfur of that name, and why this is incorrect, should be added in the İnegöl article, precisely to combat this misinformation that is apparently widespread in Turkey. Constantine ✍ 14:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above. There is no reason to work this into something else, if someone thinks another topic is notable and some sources here would help create an article, they should create it, not rework content here. The article history here would be unneeded baggage and reworking would take more effort than starting fresh.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   04:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maveryx[edit]

Maveryx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable company, WP:PROMO reads like a sales brochure. Its only cited sources are two long-ago conference talks by employees. Search reveals little other coverage. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, I was able to find a handful of search matches on Google Scholar, but searching through the non-paywalled ones did not reveal any significant coverage, which leaves me less than optimistic about the papers that I was not able to review. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rosguill: I also found mentions, when doing a BEFORE, but nothing that came close to GNG "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The articles in it-wiki (this is an Italian company) and in de-wiki were both created in 2020 by SPAs, both are translations of this promotional article. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per my last AfD. No reliable sources can be found to support the product's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: I don't understand why we are discussing the Maveryx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article instead of the Maveryx Srl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) one. Rosguill reviewed it because I moved it from my sandbox after I waited many months for a review. --Megaride (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is the article up for deletion. Neither meets notability requirements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Megaride, I converted Maveryx Srl to a redirect because it appeared to fall far short of meeting WP:NCORP, and Maveryx was a relevant related article to point it to that had a bit of a stronger claim to meeting WP:GNG. It appears that it as well, however, falls short of that mark. Additionally, you have not yet responded to the COI disclosure notice that I left on your talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:, I just responded the COI disclosure notice on my talk page.--Megaride (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Walter Görlitz, the Maveryx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article was created when it was an open-source project. After that it is was just updated. I used other articles as example to write it.--Megaride (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Spam cross wiki. No reliable sources to support either the product and the company notability. --НУРшЯGIO^{(beware of the moose)} 06:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relja Milanković Reksona[edit]

Relja Milanković Reksona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A possible nonnotable singer. No third party sources provided, none found. Has 3 notability tag that remained since March 2018. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - sources fail to establish notability; plenty of sources on the Serbian Wikipedia page but, those that are reliable, either give him or his company a passing mention or don't mention him at all. Part of a series of seemingly non-notable topics that include Bassivity Digital, Bassivity Music and Oneya. Spiderone 15:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above. Peter303x (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One of several articles involving this musician and his various small business ventures. None are notable per WP's rules on reliable media coverage, and they are probably attempted promotions. Meanwhile, this article's "Discography" section includes TV shows and movies, which apparently included some production work from this guy's companies, but they are not even close to his own releases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might want to take a look at Jedan na jedan, which is linked to the article under discussion here. Foreign film notability is not my area of expertise, but this one looks fishy too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Doomsdayer520, done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jedan na jedan --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MUSICBIO, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:MILL. We've been through this perhaps a hundred times. Music producers, DJs, and technicians are very common and are almost never notable, absent really good coverage about them, and not who they worked with last year on an EP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onion Games[edit]

Onion Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am unable to find significant discussion of this company in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. ... discospinster _talk 15:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I previously endorsed the PROD which was removed by the page creator - all of the sources are routine business announcements which are not substantial. I was unable to find anything that met the WP:GNG. ~RAM (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• yeah just delete it EmotionlessProsecutor (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is the author of the page. ~RAM (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:MILL. It is not the same as the possibly notable Quarter Onion Games. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep:Needs improvement on references. Otherwise return to draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilliantfire (talk • contribs) 11:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG failure; may well be notable in the future so possibly WP:TOOSOON at best; not every indie game developer is notable enough for an article Spiderone 18:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Agarwal[edit]

Rahul Agarwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable business person lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Do not meet WP:BASIC RationalPuff (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough news coverage. Peter303x (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A dude with a job. Nothing notable to be said about him. FalconK (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LaBryan Ray[edit]

LaBryan Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does obviously not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG as well. –Cupper52^Discuss! 14:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 14:17 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While collegiate defensive linemen rarely receive the coverage required under WP:GNG, Ray is an exception. He was a five-star recruit (rated No. 28 overall in the country) by 247 sports) and plays for the national champion Alabama Crimson Tide. Even a quick google search turns up loads of coverage. Examples: (1) this from The Athletic, (2) this and (3) this from SI.com, (4) this from The Birmingham News, (5) this from WHNT, (6) this from the Chattanooga Times Free Press, (7) this from the Madison County Record, (8) this and (9) this from the Montgomery Advertiser, (10) this from USA Today, and (11) this from The Crimson and White (albeit probably not independent). Cbl62 (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus non-notable Nosebagbear (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbili Vamsham[edit]

Bobbili Vamsham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. –Cupper52^Discuss! 14:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not every commercially made film is notable. That is basically the inclusion criteria we would need to justify this article,John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avaye Honar[edit]

Avaye Honar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Searching "آوای هنـــر" and "Avaye Honar" doesn't seem to bring much to suggest that this would pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. It has a brief bio at Genius and a Facebook page with 133 followers. Most other hits are either primary sources or about something that is nothing to do with this record label. For example there is 'Avaye Honar Gallery' and 'Avaye Honar Institute of Music' both of which seem to be more notable than this record label. Spiderone 13:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we need something other than a subjects website to show notability. The really scary thing is that probably a majority of articles on record labels have this level of sourcing or just a little more. We have lots of areas in Wikipedia with articles that lack adequate sourcing. It is a daunting taks to fix these issues, which are in large part a relic of our uncontrolled build policies that existed for the first 5 years of the project, and even when we started to form definite limits of inclusion in 2006, what people saw was reckless almost limitless inclusion in practice, and repeated more what they saw than what our policies advised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think I went far enough down the rabbit hole when I found this article. Not sure I want to venture too much further! Spiderone 16:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and JPL. Facebook and genius are not reliable either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteneeds further expansion and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brilliantfire (talk • contribs) 11:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-notable Nosebagbear (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MourningSound Records[edit]

MourningSound Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't see that there is enough here to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. This band has a very small catalogue of releases and none of the bands or albums seem to be notable. Bhelliom had an article but it was deleted as A7 all the way back in 2007. There is a tiny bit of (promotional sounding) info at this website but I found little else. The label is listed on Discogs but I don't believe that it makes it notable by default. Spiderone 13:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete not GNG even by Singapore's standards, unfortunately. – robertsky (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnotable label. During a google search I only found discogs, metal archives, reverbnation, spirit of metal and blogspot. Results No evidence of reliable sources, no evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, no non-database sources about the topic. Globg 15:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the best source I could find was spirit of metal, which was merely a directory listing, aside from the point I don't know if it is reliable or not. Does not pass GNG, does not appear to meet NMUSIC#5, and there is no verification it has had any cultural impact on a genre or regional music scene. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Metal is not listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID, which makes it hard to determine the reliability of a site. But I think it's unreliable. Even though it calls itself a webzine, it looks much more like a database to me. It always lists bands and other stuff in a database-like way (the basic facts listed, and even then, many times they are incorrect, for example, about the year the band was founded). So I wouldn't count on it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rio Tinto Borax Mine. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West Baker, California[edit]

West Baker, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't think this one meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Topos show two buildings and a borax mine. The only coverage I can turn up for this place on newspapers.com, google, or google books is for the West Baker mine, and the coverage appears to be largely trivial. No indication there was ever a proper community here. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Redirect: I added a 1947 USGS map showing West Baker. Despite showing some buildings, the mine appears to be the only reason West Baker was "populated" at one time. It appears this mine is now the Rio Tinto Borax Mine ("the largest borax mine in the world, producing nearly half the world's borates"), so we could redirect there if we don't want to keep both articles. UPDATE: After reading more, i definitely think this and (Baker) should redirect to the mine article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a former settlement. Many ghost towns have wikipedia articles. Worth keeping for now.SWP13 (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SWP13 - The relevant notability guideline is WP:GEOLAND. Just being a former settlement doesn't quite cut it, as GEOLAND requires the community to have been legally recognized at some point in its existence to be notable. There's just no indication that this place ever had legal recognition as a community. Appearing on a map isn't enough, and there's a strong consensus over the course of many AFDs that the GNIS reference doesn't cut it - see the essay WP:GNIS for an explanation as to why not. There was a place here, although I haven't seen evidence that there was an actual community here in addition to the mine. However, being a real place does not equal automatic notability. West Baker would need to pass WP:GNG, and there just isn't enough coverage for that. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete or Redirect to Rio Tinto Borax Mine. No post office. West Baker was at best an interim name of a mine and the locale West Baker is not notable, or is superseded by another article. I found no evidence of any settlement at this locale, I found no articles about "so and so living, dying or visiting West Baker". West Baker is not listed in ghosttowns.com (a fairly definitive though not necessarily WP:RS). Searching newspapers.com for ' "West Baker" in California ' yielded hits for "West Bakers.", which is probably West Bakersfield. Searching newspapers.com for ' "West Bakers" Borax ' yielded a single mining article: [5]. Searching newspapers.com for ' "Suckow Mine" in California' yields a number of hits, the best is a History the Suckow Mine. That article does not mention West Baker, so it is no help for this article and the Suckow Mine is mentioned in the Rio Tinto Borax Mine article. Searching for "West Baker" should not be confused with Baker, California, which is much more well known. Presumably, West Baker is west of the barely notable Baker, Kern County, California, which at least Durham reports to have had a post office (though that post office is not listed in the post office list I regularly use). As West Baker has no legal recognition and the trivial coverage indicates that it at best a non-notable interim name in a mine covered elsewhere, neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met. For there to be an article about West Baker, I'd like to see a WP:RS source that indicates that West Baker was more than the interim name for a mine. Merging to Rio Tinto Borax Mine would be fine.Cxbrx (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I usually don't comment after I've voted and the article has been relisted, but I found no evidence that West Baker was anything but the interim name of a mine. I found no evidence that anyone lived there - I found no articles stating so and so visited from, lived at or died at West Baker. West Baker was the non-notable interim name of a mine that is covered elsewhere, there is no evidence that there was a community that had any function other than supporting a single mine. The West Baker article could be redirected to Rio Tinto Borax Mine so as to avoid someone accidentally recreating a West Baker article. Or, it could be deleted. However, what ever happens, there should not be a standalone "West Baker, California" article because West Baker is not a notable community. Eddie891: could you explain why you relisted instead of deleting or redirecting? I see that perhaps my "Merge or Delete" muddied the consensus, it would help me know how better to annotate these votes. Cxbrx (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been better to !vote 'delete or redirect' if that was the case, because 'merge' is not the same as 'delete'. When I relisted there was one comment (leaning redirect) by an established user, one 'keep' !vote by an established user, one delete !vote (nom), and one 'merge or delete' !vote (yours), not quite a consensus, imo. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's a big help. I've changed my !vote to delete or redirect. I appreciate you and the other admins taking the time to go through these and adjudicate them. With so many geography articles for deletion, it seems like the typical pattern is that a few editors are reviewing most of the articles with occasional different editors chiming in. Hopefully, this AfD will get some more input. Cxbrx (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my comment to "redirect". If I am a reader of wikipedia, the best context to learn about the locale once called "West Baker" is in connection with the current mining operations.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rio Tinto Borax Mine. There is no evidence this was a settlement or had legal recognition of any kind, its just a couple of buildings to support a mine. Even if there was some evidence people lived here, WP:GEOLAND states populated places without legal recognition are evaluated based on GNG and there is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth required by GNG. No objection to delete, but redirects are cheap.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   12:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bassivity Digital[edit]

Bassivity Digital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The parent company is currently at AfD and is looking like it will be deleted. The notability issues are clear to see for this one as well. I've noticed that User:doomsdayer520 added maintenance templates a while ago which were removed with no attempt to address the issue. I can't see how this subsidiary of a non-notable record label would meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Spiderone 12:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete (WP:A10) as a near-duplicate of Bassivity Music which is also currently nominated for deletion, with a robust discussion of the entire operation's lack of notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it qualifies for A10, unfortunately, as it's not a recently created article. I do, however, have my concerns about Relja Milanković Reksona's notability as well. Article creator for all three articles seems to be an SPA. Spiderone 14:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" and "Speedy Delete" are merely a procedural distinction. If I'm in favor of one then there should be no doubt that I'm in favor of the other as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Spiderone, another related page, Oneya was up for deletion a while back Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oneya. The outcome is delete. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, that one was actually created by a different user to these other 3 articles Spiderone 15:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the only sources I could find were either obviously non-independent, or user-generated content. Does not meet GNG, or NMUSIC#5. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's a rough consensus that the WP:SYNTH problems cannot be overcome. Applying a dose of TNT. Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Ways of Knowing[edit]

Indigenous Ways of Knowing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Several users have brought up problems with the article on the talk page and at the talk page of Xicanx (talk · contribs), the article's creator. These include:

• A lack of neutrality, and support of fringe theories
• The essay-like, unencyclopaedic tone
• Excessive generalizations that homogenize disparate groups around the world. The author extrapolates and generalizes from sources that talk about specific cultures, constituting original research.

GenQuest (talk · contribs) argues that draftifying the article is inappropriate because, to put it bluntly, there's not much to salvage. I am inclined to agree. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Strong keep, possibly speedy per WP:CSK#3: This nomination simply has nothing to do with page deletion policy at all. The nomination describes reasons that someone might template a page, but absolutely zero indication is given as to why this page should be deleted. This topic is a massively obvious WP:GNG pass, with no reason to believe that it meets any other deletion criteria. In addition to the literally dozens of sources on the page, "indigenous ways of knowing" is the topic of entire university classes (e.g. 1 2, 3, etc.), research articles with hundreds or thousands of citations (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and the other 12,297 results for this search string on google scholar), books by major publishing houses and academic presses (1, 2, 3), and I could easily go on. There is just no serious discussion at all to be had here. - Astrophobe (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've struck my !vote and changed it to just being a comment on the framing of the nomination, because a deletion argument has now been advanced below, namely the case for TNT. It's very possible that that's better than overhauling the page as it is. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TNT. Sometimes an article is so wrong at its core we just need to start over, which seems to be the case here. The alternative might be if the main contributor to the article stepped down for a bit and let others form it into something better over time. That's not happening, and it seems too late for that now anyway. GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The creator of the article is POV pushing, hard, and the base contention of the article is that ALL of Indigenous people are united in a common theme of beliefs everywhere in the world. And then the article sets out to bring together a bunch of generalized thoughts from a variety of individuals to create its own unique belief system as if every Indigenous person transcribes to it. It pushes one view as fact and not even one held by a majority of Indigenous people. Wikipedia is not a place for a college thesis paper. This is an obvious violation of Wikipedia rules on maintaining a neutral POV (WP:NPOV) and its use of over generalized and vague thoughts as well as declaring those thoughts came from "scholars", not necessarily recognized by every clan, tribe or nation to be someone to speak for their people, is quite troubling. The underlying foundation of this article is projecting a falsehood with the intention to mislead the reader into believing that Indigenous people in Australia have the same worldview beliefs as those in North America and, in turn, they have the same worldview beliefs as those in South America and so on and so on. It is disrespectful to individual nations, clans and tribes and the ancestral stories and beliefs that they hold sacred for themselves. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, GenQuest and RoseWolf. I found this mess and have tried to clean it up, and have been fought every step of the way by POV-pusher and essayist, Xicanx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who seems determined to use WP to establish OR as academic fact. While the phrase is established in academia, and thus results in many hits on google and in google scholar, the phrase is being used in differing ways, often by non-Indigenous people, to teach classes and author papers that are often offensive and insulting in their noble savage and anti-intellectual generalizations about tens of thousands of cultures, the world over. I've done what I can to try to fix this mess, and am sick of it; it's hopeless. Every and any phrase being kicked around by various people in academia doesn't deserve an article, especially when it results in messes like this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Keep (See more explanation below) As stated by Astrophobe, there really is no reason at all as to why this article should be deleted. This term is so widely used and the page is full of sourced citations. Those arguing for its deletion seem to have some personal issue with how the concept is being applied by the academics themselves, but this should not be relevant as to whether a page should exist on Wikipedia or not. The article is not "wrong at its core" when the page is full of citations from academics, many of whom are Indigenous themselves (which is also outlined clearly throughout the article), who apply the term "Indigenous ways of knowing" and use the concept in the context it is being described on the page. The framing that this is being imposed on Indigenous people or that most of the academics cited are "non-Indigenous" is simply untrue and verifiable to anyone who reads the page. Xicanx (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should write this article as an opinion piece and make it clear this is not fact but opinion. You pass it off as fact within the article when countless Indigenous people who edit here at Wikipedia are telling you that they do not accept this concept as fact. That, alone, defies this very concept. You are presenting, even doubling down on, a non-neutral POV. Just because academia says it doesn't make it true. That would be like taking the beliefs a specific tribe and that of the rest of the Indigenous world, find the similarities and then saying that every Indigenous person is a member of that tribe because they have similar beliefs. That's false. Similar does not mean equal. You can not paint the canvas of Indigenous peoples with a broad brush or make general statements on belief based on very personal and specific quotes. Comparisons work in the controlled environment of academia. They often do not work in the practical world where the environment is less controlled. That gets messy. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xicanx, go read WP:NOT. WP is not the place for this project of yours. You might also want to take under advisement that not everyone who writes papers in the field of "Indigenous studies" is actually Indigenous, or actually involved in an Indigenous community. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Literally sentence 3 of the article addresses the concerns which have been raised as a reason to delete the page: "While there is not a universal Indigenous belief system, since Indigenous peoples throughout the world vary widely in terms of geography, language, and social structure, some scholars assert that there are several key similarities among Indigenous philosophical approaches that together form the foundation of IWOK." This sentence is substantiated by multiple scholarly sources, many of whom are by Indigenous academics (which, again, addresses another concern raised here). Again, the following direct quote is included which exemplifies the theoretical foundations of IWOK: "In a chapter on "Comparative Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Learning," scholars Katia Sol Madjidi and Jean-Paul Restole state:[18]

   Eurocentric and Indigenist are broad monolithic generalizations, as both categories are comprised of diverse national and cultural groups, each with their own unique traditions, perspectives, and approaches to knowing and learning. However, we use general categories as a basis for drawing out points of comparison between two distinct sets of worldviews and approaches to knowing and learning. We also name the specific affiliation of the author or tribe, wherever possible, to help distinguish and honour the specific cultural roots of each contribution.[18]"

This framing is supported by numerous sources by Indigenous academics. Some of the most prominent are listed here: Lisa Grayshield and Anita Mihecoby, both of whom are Indigenous, who do the very clear work of comparing Indigenous and Western worldviews in their published research, exhibited through the image provided in the Foundations section. Gregory Cajete, Leroy Little Bear, James (Sákéj) Youngblood Henderson, Marie Battiste, Arthur W. Blume, Carl Mika, Mark Rifkin, Nick Estes, Haunani-Kay Trask, Jean-Paul Restole, Grace Dillon, Sandra Styres, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, all of whom are Indigenous, do this comparative work evidently as well, also included on the page. Vine Deloria Jr., another prominent Indigenous academic, for example, states "a great unanimity among Aboriginal nations when they express their views on the natural world and on the behavior of humans in that world" yet also acknowledges the diversity of Indigenous peoples. Tewa educator Gregory Cajete states in reference to what he refers to as the rise of the Indigenous mind that while Indigenous peoples globally are very diverse "in terms of languages and in terms of places in which we live, what we have in common is this understanding of connection, of relationship, to the places in which we live."

All of the above are included and sourced on the page itself. Once again, if you do not agree with the conceptual framing these academics have presented (as exhibited through direct quotes), then that is a personal issue. These are the perspectives of Indigenous academics themselves and this perspective is clearly exhibited and sourced on the page. Just because I as an editor have sourced this material and have edited it onto a page, does not mean that page should be deleted. Just because you do not agree with a concept discussed by published academics should not mean that it should be deleted (especially when the page already addresses multiple concerns raised). For the record, I have stated this multiple times on both the article's Talk page and elsewhere. Thank you. Xicanx (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Vine Deloria is a big red flag for me. He probably should not be cited for anything other than his own opinions. jps (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've looked over the article with an eye to what could be done to a) make it encyclopedic, and b) remove the "noble savage" tone apparently endemic to discussion on this academic theory. I couldn't find ways to do either. Even to slash-and-burn it down to almost a stub will leave problems inherent in the subject. Also note that academia, in general and over time, has promoted some really horrible theories about Indigenous peoples. I generally dislike deleting articles except for the most obvious cases. No matter how I examine it, I don't see how to salvage it. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:TNT. The current article reads like an essay, and is North America centric, as is typical with discussions on "indigenous people" (a term rarely used outside a western settler colonialism context). I do think that the term probably should redirect somewhere, but I am unsure where. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a topic like "Indigenous Ways of Knowing" is that it is invariably broad and poorly defined, and a generalisation of many distinct groups. The academic sources make clear that the phrase itself is notable, but the article doesn't make clear when and where the phrase came from, nor how it is used in the literature. I think the article could be kept if it was transformed into one about the phrase itself and the ideas associated with it, without being too North America centric. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I saw this a while ago and am glad it got wide scrutiny now. CorbieVreccan nailed it when they said, While the phrase is established in academia, and thus results in many hits on google and in google scholar, the phrase is being used in differing ways, often by non-Indigenous people, to teach classes and author papers that are often offensive and insulting in their noble savage and anti-intellectual generalizations about tens of thousands of cultures, the world over. At best, it needs TNT, but I'd argue more for deletion per WP:FRINGE. Not every idea churned out somewhere in academia is actually a mainstream NPOV topic in the relevant field of scholarship. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Comments made above are apt; the article could be resurrected with a less credulous treatment of what is a fringe perspective. If these ideas are to be encyclopaedic, they probably belong in their creators' own articles. GPinkerton (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• More issues with similar articles: I went through the contribs of Xicanx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) last night. There are more articles with these exact same problems. I am asking others here to look over them. For example: Recolonization. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Xicanx, is a relatively new Wikipedia editor, only active since 2019. He/she is passionate about this topic and this is reflected in the article. I agree that the article in its current state is an argumentative essay, and it reminds me of New Age ideas. However, the cited sources indicate that the subject of the article is still a notable subject, and that there is room for improvement. WP:TNT never really works. In practice, it deletes articles without the creation of replacements. Dimadick (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly a notable topic[6] While it could definitely be improved, the article doesn't look nearly bad enough for TNT. Behavior issues such as POV pushing should be addressed at ANI or Arbcom, not by deleting the page. (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear if this google scholar search is indicating that the topic itself is notable. I think the term is most often used as a means to identify certain specific instances where the knowledge of indigenous people is investigated, incorporated into research, or otherwise documented. The idea that there is a monolithic "indigenous way of knowing" that somehow can be identified as a singular endeavor is a conceit for which there is essentially no sources. Aside from a disambiguation page or perhaps a redirect to something like Indigenous studies, I have a hard time imagining how an article on this term could develop as anything other than a compendium which the current article simply does not accommodate. jps (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not just behavior issues. The way the article is written is important. If the article is not written from a neutral POV, not meaning the sources have to be neutral but that the tone of the article must be as if the author takes a neutral POV in regards to the content, and no path forward to editing the article to present it in a NPOV then there is grounds for deletion (TNT) no matter whether the topic is notable or not. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• UserfyDelete (I am convinced by User:CorbieVreccan's argument and the responses by user:Xicanx. Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to provide this kind of WP:SYNTHesis of sources. jps (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)) I think some of the sources and text here may be usable in other context, but the entire endeavor is strikingly WP:SYNTHetic as an article. The wide net that is cast is particularly concerning and the treatment of this subject as a false binary contrasting with WWOK is problematic in the aggregate. There are some excellent sources and ideas to include in Wikipedia, but until there is a coherent exploration of this as a coherent subject in reliable secondary sources, Wikipedia should not be promoting some sort of system that this article is pushing. jps (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good idea, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Xicanx is already trying to use the 'pedia to astroturf for their academic c.v. and projects, and they are misrepresenting some of the nn "scholars" they are promoting to push offensive generalizations and fringe theories, often by non-Indigenous academics who Xicanx doesn't seem to understand are not Indigenous (claims of partial or distant heritage are not the same thing as being part of an Indigenous culture and community). That Xicanx is misrepresenting established Indigenous authors as supporting the same theories in toto, due to some topical overlaps, is WP:OR and a form of forced-teaming. Buidhe's looking simply at the appearance of the phrase ignored these details, and Dimadick's stressing that Xicanx has "only" been here for two years doesn't seem to take into account their refusal to respect (or learn?) policy. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are helpful overall, thank you.

I would like to say now that just because a collection of scholars assert a concept which may be viewed by others as problematic, does not mean it should not have a page. The notability of the subject has been established and it is indeed a notable topic. I will say again that I believe the page should stay, but I think I am just voting 'Keep' rather than 'Strong Keep' now after reading your comments. At this point, given the discussion so far, I think the page should be edited down significantly. Most sections, if not all, should be deleted and the topic should be summarized briefly. I do think most issues raised here do not warrant the page to be deleted, but rather, that it be edited down.

For some background, I became passionate about this subject after reading the work of Indigenous scholars, writers, artists, etc., many of whom are cited on the page. I am not being paid nor using this to boost my c.v. nor would I desire to work in academia lol. Through reading their work I came to understand how the concept these scholars, writers, and artists were employing was imperfect, homogenizing, and problematic, but also came to understand that it was or could be important/notable in the broadest of respects (to broadly compare and contrast "Western" and "Indigenous" worldviews). This is why the page is framed in the manner it is, because this is how scholars have used the term or employed the general concept themselves (as is clearly cited through direct quotes). Many of them acknowledged that this conceptual framing was homogenizing, which is why the page forefronts that there is no "universal" Indigenous belief system (obviously, as indicated in sentence 3 and elsewhere on the page) but that there are similarities between Indigenous epistemologies (or how we know what we know) which have been identified by scholars and discussed conceptually under the term 'Indigenous Ways of Knowing.' Academics like Paula Gunn Allen and others have done this work (in the North American context) since the mid-late 1900s, so this idea of comparing and contrasting in a broad sense is nothing new. However, it seems more comparative scholarship needs to be published to expand the article to such a scope as I have attempted here in order to fairly address such a massive framing. For this reason, a significant reduction should be more appropriate.

Once again, this is an issue of editing though, not deletion. Edit: I would also like to add to the discussion that I attempted to address some of the issues being raised here by adding numerous sources and changing the language of the article to be more neutral. This can be viewed in the edit history on the page, yet all of my edits were mass deleted by CorbieVreccan even though they admitted that not all of my edits were 'unusable.' I reverted these one time because, as they stated, they were not 'unusable' and provided an explanation as to why I did and then was immediately accused of 'edit warring' (as if I had done it again and again). I am not trying to reignite an argument, just adding this to the discussion. Xicanx (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the best place for this but I'll still comment: if and how Wikipedia can cover scholars of course depends, but a guide is first looking if their views, or the topics they cover, are notable enough for an article. Sometimes an article should also be on the person rather than about a particular topic. If independent sources discuss those directly, it's a good indication (IWOK may be notable here). Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a paper, editors are expected to minimize synthesis (WP:SYNTH and WP:OR). This also means that in this case sources that are not directly about "IWOK" itself, should be avoided or almost. From my experience, minimal synthesis usually passes when it's only for contextual details. Of course, when directly IWOK-related sources refer to subtopics and other sources, those sources can more naturally be used as well. Finally, because this is one of the striking issues when reading the article, is that editors should be careful about what to present in Wikipedia's voice, especially fact statements, and what should be attributed (i.e. WP:YESPOV). Finally, if the claims if the primary scholarly sources are controversial, WP:PRIMARY also matters: the interpretation of those views should usually be that of independent secondary sources that cover them. If such sources are difficult to find, it may be evidence of little impact, questioning if it's notable. —PaleoNeonate – 15:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xicanx calling Paula Gunn Allen an "academic" once again illustrates a major issue here. Allen was not considered an Indigenous scholar or academic; she mostly published on non-academic presses. Some of her works were on New Age, small presses, where she wrote fiction, poetry, and collaborated with some of the most problematic non-Natives in the field. She is mostly known in the women's spirituality community. I just looked at her page and her biblio section lacks publication data, which serves to muddle this. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have researched and looked at a quite a few of these "scholars" and I wouldn't consider them experts in a collective Indigenous system of belief on anything. As I have stated, they have their opinions, beliefs and interpretations, we all have those, but then I'm not calling myself an Indigenous scholar either. I know what I believe but I also respect that CorbieVreccan may believe something different. How is my way any more "knowing" than theirs or any other person with Indigenous heritage? This is a fringe belief(s) being projected here as a widespread collection of beliefs shared by most if not all Indigenous peoples and being titled "Indigenous ways of knowing" and includes quotes from prominent historical speakers mixed with New Age believers and current members within various tribal nations and clans of the world to paint this messy picture of unity that simply doesn't exist outside its natural parameters. I can come together with people from many nations. We can even Powwow and celebrate that which unifies us by our heritage. But it does not mean we collectively believe all that is said within this article. Not even close. This is fringe academia, not a historical or current collective belief. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FRANKENSTEIN. I made two edits based on information from a source I was able to access, to clarify the attribution as a way to remove 'scholars' language, but also found, as noted above by CorbieVreccan, the phrase "Indigenous ways of knowing" is used in different ways, and the article appears to be trying to generalize the term. One POV seems to dominate the beginning of the article, and then other uses of the phrase appear to be added as if they are within the same framework, which is why I refer to the WP:FRANKENSTEIN essay about good faith errors that can be made by Wikipedia editors. Maybe the article could be saved with a thorough revision that clearly states at the beginning of the article that the phrase is used in different ways, and then presents various ways that the phrase is used, and includes a section with critique. I would consider changing my !vote if there was support for this approach, i.e. if it seems feasible. Beccaynr (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC) After review of the ongoing discussion, and research (e.g.), I do not think revision is feasible. Beccaynr (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I think a critique section would be very helpful especially because many of the authors who have written about this subject discuss its problems and lay these out openly in their work (such as issues with homogenization). Listing this information more clearly in a critiques section will make this more clear. I also think it would be helpful to organize the nuances in the ways the phrase is being used and make this clear in the introduction so I support your approach. Xicanx (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, WP:Criticism sections are not good ideas. A lot of problematic generalizations are being made currently at this page which are not even necessarily the provenance of the authors who are being cited. The answer is not simply to make a separate section that is "on the other hand". Wikipedia is WP:TERTIARY and if there are no secondary sources which can help frame a topic, it is likely that the topic is not properly addressed for the Wikipedia editorial treatment. jps (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per the problems in the article cited above. Trying to edit/rework what is in this article into something acceptable is a timesink with absolutely no upside. It will be far better to start fresh without saddling an interested editor(s) with the burdern of trying to retrofit this content into a well written article. WP:TNT exists for a reason, sometimes it is just better to start fresh. Two experienced editors have thought about ways to reform the current article have concluded it would be better to start over.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   12:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Undoubtedly notable. We are far from TNT currently. Shankargb (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep totally meets WP:GNG. AfD is not for cleanup. Tessaracter (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Massive problems with Synth. Individually taken, some of the sources (excluding the obviously duff ones) could be used within specific articles, here they are being collected together to try and link disparate issues. TNT is the way to go, as I do not see any realistic chance this will be improved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I also don't think this will be improved. If the article creator wants to work on it in draft space I would support that. Spudlace (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I find the arguments above based on WP:SYNTH/WP:NOTESSAY/WP:TNT compelling, independent from how important it may be to understand and document non-western cultural ideas, how notable the general topic of studying non-western cultural bases may be, or how troubling we may find the exoticism, othering, essentialism, or failure to distinguish the diversity of multiple cultures apparent in this article's view of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your comments, thank you they are helpful. I would like to add that there are sources which do define Indigenous Ways of Knowing the way that it is being explained on the page. After reading your comments and reflecting about the edits, it is obvious that there is some synthesis being done, but there are also sources which plainly describe IWOK as it is being described on the page.

Included as part of A Guide for Front-Line Staff, Student Services, and Advisors which is "an open professional learning series developed for staff across post-secondary institutions in British Columbia." It includes a section on Indigenous Ways of Knowing which opens with "While there is great diversity among Indigenous Peoples, there are also some commonalities in Indigenous worldviews and ways of being. Indigenous worldviews see the whole person (physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual) as interconnected to land and in relationship to others (family, communities, nations)."

Office of Indigenous Studies at Queen's University has a page titled Indigenous Ways of Knowing that says "'Indigenous Ways of Knowing' is a useful term that recognizes the beautiful complexity and diversity of Indigenous ways of learning and teaching. Many people continue to generalize Indigenous experience and lived realities. The intent of the phrase 'Indigenous Ways of Knowing' is to help educate people about the vast variety of knowledge that exists across diverse Indigenous communities. It also signals that, as Indigenous Peoples, we don't just learn from human interaction and relationships. All elements of creation can teach us, from the plant and animal nations, to the 'objects' that many people consider to be inanimate. So, our Indigenous ways of knowing are incredibly sophisticated and complex. These ways relate to specific ecology in countless locations, so the practices, languages and protocols of one Indigenous community may look very different from another. Yet, Indigenous ways of knowing are commonly steeped in a deep respect for the land, and the necessity of a reciprocal relationship with the land.": https://www.queensu.ca/indigenous/ways-knowing

An article used as a fact sheet approved/published by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada authored by faculty at the University of Guelph that is titled "What are Indigenous and Western Ways of Knowing?The fact sheet opens saying "There is no single Indigenous or Western way of knowing. It is easy to fall into the traps of ‘homogenizing’ and ‘othering’ by reducing vast and varied traditions to simplistic and general terms. However, it is important to offer some starting point for this fact sheet as part of our effort to bring Indigenous and Western perspectives into conversation with one another.": https://www.criaw-icref.ca/images/userfiles/files/Fact%20Sheet%202%20EN%20FINAL.pdf

I can include more if needed that discuss the subject like this. So this framing is not inaccurate or just being entirely manufactured through synthesis. There are many sources which discuss Indigenous Ways of Knowing as it is framed on the page, which is why I think the page should be significantly reduced (as I mentioned previously). For example, the "Indigenous vs. Western" section has many synthesis issues but the rest of the page may just need to be reworked. If anyone has any thoughts, feel free to comment. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xicanx (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fact sheets and staff guidelines are very far from the high quality of scholarly sourcing needed to rescue this. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I included the fact sheet because it is pulling directly from a published journal article. As written on the bottom of page 1: "This is one of a series of five fact sheets drawn from a research paper called "Learning across Indigenous and Western knowledge systems and intersectionality: Reconciling social science research approaches" (2018) by L.Levac, L.McMurtry, D.Stienstra, G.Baikie, C.Hanson and D.Mucina. The fact sheets were authored by J.Stinson, designed by Ellyn Lusis and Tiffany Murphy, and formatted by B.Ryan. The fact sheets, full research paper, and related resources are available at www.criaw-icref.ca." The published journal article reiterates the same framing, the fact sheet simply makes the information more readily accessible and was used to demonstrate that the framing is not a result of synthesis. Here are other published academic sources which do the same:

"Comparative Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Learning" by Katia Sol Madjidi and Jean-Paul Restoule. The authors state in this article published by Canadian Scholars' Press in a section titled "Comparative Eurocentric and Indigenous Ways of knowing" the following: "Common generalizations comparing Eurocentric and Indigenous epistemologies include binary classifications such as linear versus cyclical, objective versus subjective, secular versus spiritual, industrial versus nature- and context-based, and fragmentary versus integrated and holistic (Little Bear, 2000; Hampton, 1995; Masemann, 1994). To construct a more in-depth comparative picture, the following aspects of ways of knowing and learning can be explored: What are learn-ing and knowledge? Where do people come to learn and know? How do people come to learn and know? From whom do they learn? And, why/for what purpose do they learn? Given the wealth of literature on Eurocentric models of education, and the Eurocentric educational par-adigm in which this chapter is being written, this section will focus on Indigenous approaches and perspectives from Indigenous scholars. Through an analysis of this literature, we draw out comparisons between Eurocentric and Indigenous ways of knowing and learning."

They then proceed to engage with the work by citing Indigenous people themselves to support their statements. Here is one section of many in which they do this: "A commonly cited difference between Eurocentric and Indigenous modes of education is of primarily literate versus primarily oral cul-tures. In Indigenous societies, great emphasis has been placed on the oral transmission of knowledge through storytelling, traditionally used to convey Aboriginal knowledge, customs, and values (Castellano, 2000, p. 31; Little Bear, 2000, p. 81). Cajete (1994) says that “stories [teach] people who they are so they can become all they were meant to be” (p. 112). Storytelling is described as the oldest form of the arts and thus the basis for the other arts, such as drama, dance, and music (Lanigan, 1998, p. 113). Whereas Eurocentric cultures often view storytelling as an activity to entertain small children, in Indigenous pedagogy it is a cen-tral tool for teaching and learning (Cajete, 1994, p. 68)."

As another example, published in a book on Indigenous Ways of Knowing in Counseling: Theory, Research, and Practice by Springer Nature edited by L. Grayshield and R. Del Castillo, on page 9-10 there is provided a definition: "Indigenous Ways of Knowing is a praxis that naturally promotes peace, justice, and respect for all life on the planet. IWOK are the collective epistemologies and ontologies of Indigenous people from specific locales that have worked to promote harmony and balance in all directions of their environments: the North, South, East, West, above, below and all around. IWOK is grounded in multi-logical reasoning therefore it naturally considers all things, in all directions, in order to make decisions about how to live on the planet with one another and in promotion of love, beauty and peace for generations to come. IWOK essentially equates to the raising of consciousness from a level of cognitive behavior to one that encompasses actions upon the world to sustain it."

As another example, published in a book on Children and Young People's Participation and Its Transformative Potential: Learning from across Countries by Springer in Chapter 2 by authors Kelly Teamey and Rachel Hinton, in a section on "Exploring indigenous cosmologies and ways of knowing": "An increasing literature describes 'indigenous knowledges' (or indigenous ways of knowing) and the threads of cosmological wholeness that link them together, cosmology meaning the ways we perceive the universe and out place in it (Battiste, 2000; Battiste and Henderson, 2002; Denzin et al., 2008, semali and Kincheloe, 1999; Smith 1999, 2003). Indigenous ways of knowing are fundamentally about interconnectdness; with the past, the present, the future, the land and the spirit. Mosha (2000) describes this interconnectedness as 'everything that is thought, said and done is done in the relationship to the whole of life and the world' (p. 5). Indigenous ways of knowing comprise all types of knowledge pertaining to a particular people and its territory (ecology) and can be better understood as a process (verb) rather than a thing (noun). The context is central and the history of knowing has been transmitted from generation to generation (Daes, 1993)."

I can provide more scholarly sources if needed. Thank you. Xicanx (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that the individual is notable per NPROF C1, but there is also consensus that a name change is warranted. However, there was not a clear stand-out for what that name should be. In the absence of an imminent demand for an interim name-change, it would be preferable if a discussion on the talk page could be had to separate that. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Justin Paul[edit]

Professor Justin Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A ref-bombed CV type article declined at AFC a couple of times already under Draft:Justin Paul (professor) JW 1961 Talk 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Has a fairly high h-index of 31 [7] – Thjarkur (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If kept, the article needs renaming. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftifty to Draft:Justin Paul (business scholar) or similar. I added his GS profile to the article. It looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, and I believe the editor-in-chief role likely meets C8. The article looks like it is not yet ready for mainspace (it's at the quality level described by WP:TNT), and should incubate in draft space. Comment that the draft previously submitted to AfC appears to be nearly identical to this one. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment that page history may need to be merged with Draft:Justin Paul (professor), which has some substantial contributions from other editors, due to copyright concerns. Pinging @Scope creep: as contributor. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep and move to Draft:Justin Paul (business scholar) after cleanup work on the article. Particular hat tip to XOR'easter for wisely cutting down. It still needs some work, but we have a start. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftifty, or if not, delete as per WP:TNT, or even just stubify (is that a word??). The person seems to be notable, but the article needs more than just a bit of cleanup. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, after looking at it again today. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I thought originally it would have been worth deleting this, and keeping the draft, but the draft had slightly fewer references, although the content looks identical. He is notable, with at six papers with more than 100 citations. It needs a copyedit, bib section added, references changed from bare url's and additional secondary sources added to address the primary sources tag. There should be some available. There is a wee bit of puff to remove and these duff [8] references removes, these page reference. I don't know why folk put these in. They are zero worth. There is no content in it, once there is a bib section. It will be a seed article. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Made by an SPA who did AFC at first under Draft:Justin_Paul_(professor). However, his google scholar shows hundreds of citations so he qualifies as an academic. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF. Article has undergone some cleanup, enough to make it still not good but acceptable. The refbombing is annoying, but I think the current draft review environment teaches new editors to do that (because the standard response to a request for a review is "no, you don't have enough references") so it's difficult to hold that against the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. for for Pete's sake, move as per Kj cheetham. He probably passes GNG and PROF, per David Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and move to either Justin Paul (academic) or Justin Paul (scholar), not sure what the most appropriate dab should be. Passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs some cleanup, but his number of citations and h-index are high enough to pass WP:PROF. --Tataral (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Marketing researchers totally throw off my AfD senses because I get trapped in a cycle of questioning fame and perceptions of reality. Do they only appear notable because they're good at marketing themselves? But then if they're that good at appearing notable, maybe they're actually talented enough to deserve the notability? Are there any successful marketing academics who have marketed themselves poorly, but really are notable? Omg but is anyone ever really notable anyway?? Here is the Scopus breakdown for Dr. Paul compared to his coauthors' credentials (or skill at marketing themselves? or is it all the same? or...):

He seems very notable for his sub-field, but whether that field is impactful enough for NPROF notability isn't super clear. Perhaps his editorship is enough to push him over. JoelleJay (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the C1 case, while present, might not be entirely clear. The chief editorship of a Wiley journal that was established in 1977 looks like a solid pass of NPROF C8 to me. I'm surprised more editors haven't mentioned it in their !vote rationales. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Council Rock High School South[edit]

Council Rock High School South (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable high school, should be deleted or redirected/merged to Holland, Pennsylvania. An entry in a database of schools is not significant coverage. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I just added sources for the three notable alumni listed, and while doing that, found a plethora of reliable sources to further support the notability of this school. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-notable Nosebagbear (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Bajarangabhali[edit]

Jai Bajarangabhali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and lacks reliable sources. I searched, but couldn't find. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 11:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable film. I have noticed films get split between the media and music articles for deletion grouping and the fiction and the arts articles for deletion grouping, with no rhyme or reason to which one they are placed in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice to recreation per Bearcat's excellent comment. Daniel (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Empty Classroom[edit]

The Empty Classroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film, only coverage seems to be blog posts and press releases, no independent reliable coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. I did find this, from a real media outlet in Chile, but I don't think that does enough. To be fair, I don't know how well Google News does or doesn't scrape Spanish-language media as a rule, and a film that was released six years ago might well have had additional media coverage that doesn't Google anymore and would have to be retrieved from archives — but we can't keep a poorly sourced article just because a possibility exists that it might have better sources than anybody is actually finding: to turn the tide here, somebody would have to show hard proof that better sources definitely exist. It needs more reliable source coverage in real media than I'm seeing, and it isn't exempted from that just because a famous actor produced it. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 among all participants that the subject is notable and has received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Deus et lex (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Tale Police Department[edit]

Fairy Tale Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NTV, I'm unable to find any good sources for it. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 10:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 10:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 10:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- the show is discussed in the Marvels & Tales academic journal: Bullen, Elizabeth, and Naarah Sawers, The Fairy Tale Police Department: Hybridity, the Transnational Television Fairy Tale, and Cultural Forms, 24–43. It is also discussed in the academic book Fairy-Tale TV By Jill Terry Rudy, Pauline Greenhill. Details about the broadcast are likely available in the 2005 Australian Film and TV Companion, which gets a google books hit, but the relevant page is not previewed. matt91486 (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Official DVD on Amazon, IMDB page, etc. There are additional French results for it in Google under title La Brigade des Contes de Fées if that helps. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added a reference to the Marvels & Tales academic journal article, and a Reception section based on a review of one of the video compilations. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Marvels & Tales drags it across the line barely. If its attracted some attention in an academic journal, there will almost certainly be non-promo reviews.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   11:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murcyleen Peerzada[edit]

Murcyleen Peerzada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

From Bollywood to Islam, and then back to previous "way of life", this subject fails any notability criteria. Hardly any sources speaks of her "independently". I do not see anything that would help the subject pass ANYBIO. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Spam, promotional and simply a vanity article. RationalPuff (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article lacks SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth from IS RS. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   06:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Berry Good. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taeha[edit]

Taeha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

First and second, third, fourth, fifth references are about the band and single 'Love Letters' and other singles, Going Crazy, etc, not this article on Taeha. Youtube is not an acceptable reference in this instance, the first Youtube link is about a song, Crazy, Gone Crazy, and not about Taeha. See WP:ELP After checking all references, all I can find is two reliable sources. All the rest are unreliable. No notability; Fails WP:SINGER Whiteguru (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NMG. Abdotorg (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Berry Good. Subject is not notable outside of her group. ƏXPLICIT 11:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maldoror (band)[edit]