Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 29 September	1 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spook the Horse

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

completely and utterly non-notable band with only minor local coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBAND. Also, CoI/paid edits and promotional username implying shared use are not a good look.Melmann 10:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND. Also, the article was created by a user back in 2006 whose username matches the band's name and only edited the band's article and other articles (singer, EP) related to them. The COI is strong with this one. Also, I couldn't find any reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with previous comments. Non-notable group, COI article creator. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of anything that would pass the criteria at WP:NBAND. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable. Pamzeis (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 22:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Log, Kentucky

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

Not entirely sure what this is, but it looks spurious. GNIS is sourced only to Rennick, but neither Rennick's Fulton County listing nor Rennick's index have an Ash Log (although the index does list two Ashlogs, both streams). Only appears on the 2015 topo, the others show nothing there. County history doesn't mention Ash Log. Google Books results are for literal logs. Not sure what it is, but there seems to be no evidence of a community here, failing WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Negligent mass creation with false information. Obviously no community at the given coordinates. Reywas92^Talk 00:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I can find searching online it appears that there was an 'Ash Log Road Cemetery' located near Hickman on Ash Log Road. It's listed on findagrave (unreliable site, I know) as being in the first volume of "Fulton County, Kentucky, cemetery readings" by the Fulton Genealogical Society, but I can't confirm as I don't have a copy. Ash Log Road is slightly to the north of the tagged coordinates, but on google maps it's listed as "Ash Logging road" (named correctly on other map sites though). Either way whatever was there seems not to have been a settlement and there are no reliable sources covering it, so a fail of WP:GEOLAND and WP:V regardless. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 22:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neurohop

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

non-notable genre that has no meaningful coverage, even in books. the little that can be found are circular back to Wikipedia or blogs. Praxidicae (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. I can find nothing solid by way of sources. The pieces cited certainly seem the best two. The rest is just music tracks and mirrors. There is a grand total of three tracks on Soundcloud. When I came to the internet radio site that said ‘Listen to 0 Neurohop stations’ I stopped looking. Mccapra (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Empowerment Experiment

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Tom Joad Tour

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable artists don't deserve articles. Dylanvt (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 14:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was written a long time ago when the WP expectations regarding sourcing and inline citing were a lot different than they are now. So it has definitely needed a refurbishment in those respects. But the tour was definitely notable, and I have now expanded the lede with a description of why it was so different, with everything cited to books and stories in major newspapers. And there are plenty more sources that are untapped, both in old newspapers articles – Newspapers.com didn't exist when the article was first written, and it is full of accounts of shows on the tour – and in books – there are several dozen books on one aspect of Springsteen or another, many published in recent years, and several of them discuss this tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There’s a lot of unsourced material in the article but the ‘critical and commercial reception’ section looks solid enough to me. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discoperi Inc.

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

non-notbale tech firm/startup. no meaningful independent coverage Praxidicae (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - all sources unreliable, promotional, self-sourced or all of these - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I totally agree about the state of the sourcing. All of it is promotional, primary, or not reliable. So, as things currently are this is a clear delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many of the sources are also just routine coverage of events or other things they are involved in, rather than coverage that has enough depth to pass organization notability. - Whisperjanes (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice toward the creation of a redirect to Ayigbe Biscuit after this deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yonunawo Kwami Edze

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

Poorly sourced biography of a person whose only apparent claim of notability is that he taught a village how to bake biscuits. This is not, in and of itself, a reason why a person would get an encyclopedia article, and the sourcing is not getting him over WP:GNG for it: the footnotes here are one news article by two student journalists, and two reaggregated repetitions of that same news article on blogs. But multiple reprints of the same content add up to one source, not several sources -- when determining whether somebody gets over GNG or not, we count how many distinct pieces of content there are, not just how many web pages have picked up and reprinted the same piece of wire content. This simply is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one real source. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Underwhelming biographical article of a subject who possess insufficient coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article at the moment. Celestina007 (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so no possibility of a "redirect" to Ayigbe Biscuit where Edze is mentioned/discussed? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. I do not oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 22:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Pond, Kentucky

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

The GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick's monograph, but Rennick's Fulton County listing doesn't seem to have a Fish Pond entry. Topos explain why: it's literally a swamp/pond. See [1] Rennick's index calls it a lake. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Negligent mass creation with false information. Reywas92^Talk 00:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not a community. There doesn't seem to be anything notable about it. Glendoremus (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Bondurant 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps for different years lack any indication for its existence as a settlement or neighbourhood at its location. Downloadable files of the 1951, 1969, 2010, and 2019 Bondurant 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps are available from the USGS Historic Topographic Map Viewer. These maps lack any indication of a settlement at the location of Fish Pond, Kentucky. There is only the Corner Stone and Sassaftas Ridge churches nearby and a marsh that lies north of the road that is named "Fish Pond." The road associated withis location is marked as "Fish Pond Rd" in Google maps and later topographic maps. There is a lack of any evidence of a settlement at the location of Fish Pond, Kentucky. Paul H. (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara De Fina

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

I couldn't actually find reliable news coverage of De Fina. The claims to notability are twofold: the marriage to Scorsese (notability isn't inherited, so that's no good), and her being a producer. I just don't see how she meets WP:PRODUCER however. She's not a co-creator, her body of work is not particularly impressive, and she doesn't meet the other criteria. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is some coverage of her available but none of it reliable, as far as I can tell, which makes her a WP:GNG fail. Regarding WP:PRODUCER, the only criterion she might meet is 3. The question is whether her role on notable films like Goodfellas was big enough to merit the term "co-creator". For Goodfellas the term does not seem warranted since Irwin Winkler is credited in most sources as the producer. But for some other films (e.g. Casino and The Age of Innocence) she acted as the lead producer. In view of this, I think she meets WP:PRODUCER. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made edits to the article, it now has sources and a list of her awards, as well as an EL. Because of her multiple award wins and nominations, and per the earlier comments, I agree that she meets WP:PRODUCER. I have found other sources that show her significance, for instance Charlie Rose has interviewed her (by herself, not with Scorcese) twice. There are other video links that would be useful but would take some time to go through. So I vote keep. --Krelnik (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. JGHowes ^talk 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaipkire

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to find any biographic details. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS so fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has an entry in the The Encyclopedia of Amazons and so has obviously been noticed in an encyclopedic way, passing WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:SOLDIER, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A mention in one book does not amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Do you feel The Encyclopedia of Amazons, which has no Wikipedia article and no redlinks, is a notable national biography, per WP:ANYBIO? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant part of WP:ANYBIO is "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Are you able to provide any sources supporting this person's contributions are "widely regognized"? Magnolia677 (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "mention in one book" but significant coverage in an encyclopedia in addition to the book cited in the article quite a few hours before you commented here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless further sourcing can be provided. A cursory google search reveals a great deal of interest from American activists on Twitter and virtually nothing in anything resembling a WP:RS. Given that the Herero genocide has received quite a bit of scholarly attention, this is pretty surprising. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And what makes you think that a cursory Google search is in any way relevant, particlarly for an article about a subject that has received quite a bit of scholarly attention? Look in books and academic articles for WP:RS. They are very rarely found by a web search. If you look in the place where Twitter posts and the like predominate then that is what you will find. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to Herero and Namaqua genocide - If all we have right now is the one source, which says she is known for her participation in that event, and the result is it's a one-sentence stub, the reader will be better served reading about her in the article about the genocide. If more sources are found, the redirect can (and should) be expanded to a stub. I don't doubt that there are more sources out there, but my thought on WP:PAGEDECIDE is it's better as a redirect until we have more material to present. Le v!v ich 21:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am finding many sources when searching academic journals; I've added a few to the article. Perhaps a WP:BEFORE may not have been completed? Subject of the article is notable, however the article can be improved (which is not a reason for deletion). Meets GNG. Netherzone (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy's Let the Women Keep Silent in the Churches almost seems to have copied this page. I can't read the relevant part of the The Cultural Unity of Negro Africa, please advise what it says. The UN report only states "Kaipkire of the Herero led her people in battles against European slave traders." These are passing mentions giving the same limited information, not SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sourcing (now). She is among the notable women who fought against colonialism in Africa. -- GreenC 14:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because a writer slaps to word "encyclopedia" on their book does not make it automatically a more forceful source than anything else we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert I know you like to be direct, but with all due respect, it is not necessary to make your point by denigrating the book and its author by claiming that the word "encylopedia" was cavalierly "slapped on". The University of Michigan Press (the original publisher, now in multiple editions) vets their books. The reason some editors mentioned it is that it counts towards WP:ANYBIO. Netherzone (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seeing the condition of this article when the article was nominated...it has come a long way during AfD. Lightburst (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2007 World Youth Report

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

I think this fails WP:NBOOK. I found one review for a previous edition of this report ([2]), but nothing for this one in particular. It seems fairly well-cited on Scholar, but no third-party in-depth coverage I can see. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might make more sense to have an article on the series, or to merge this into United_Nations_Department_of_Economic_and_Social_Affairs#Reports, than to have a stand-alone article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found two reviews of specific editions (i.e., one in addition to the one in the nom) and I don't see enough content for a dedicated article or even enough context to make it worth a mention in the parent UN DESA article. Makes sense to redirect World Youth Report if it's mentioned in that article, but otherwise no need to link 2007's edition.

Lloyd, Cynthia B. (2005). "Review of World Youth Report 2003: The Global Situation of Young People". Studies in Family Planning. 36 (4): 326–327. ISSN 0039-3665. JSTOR 4148965.

"World youth report 2005; young people today and in 2015". Reference & Research Book News. Vol. 21, no. 1. February 2006. ISSN 0887-3763. Gale A141644943. Single paragraph

czar 00:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Darmanin Demajo

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

Football executive and former player who, in my opinion, fails GNG and NFOOTY. His alleged national team caps/goals not supported by any external sources that deal with international football BlameRuiner (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources such as this confirm he was a national team player, although I find it strange that that is not mentioned here. Either way, plenty of sources out there about him, unsurprising given he was President of the Malta Football Association between 2010 and 2019, see this amongst others. Giant Snowman 21:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: protocols of all Malta games from 1975-76 are available. Norman Darmanin isn't in any of them. As for his coverage, if this was a player, it would amount to transfer updates routine. What is he actually notable for, besides being appointed to this or that position? --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is Brad Pitt notable for, besides acting in some films? Giant Snowman 19:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG but does fail NFOOTY; significant coverage includes this source [3] which confirms that his caps were for the Malta amateur national team so that explains why they don't show as full caps in other sources Spiderone 22:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are we sure that the Malta national football team was amateur at the time? Was there a separate "amateur's only" national team at the time? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were two separate teams hence why this guy doesn't appear on any squad lists for the Malta national team during that period Spiderone 07:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, likely he played for the amateur national team (England had two, so no reason why Malta wouldn't) - but that's not why I think he is notable. Giant Snowman 19:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I can't barely see this article and proposed it for deletion because it is a false and unfair suggestion, this passes GNG, WP NO, WP Bio and WP Footy. in fact iam adding more citations. (F5pillar---/ ^{'Messager🖋📩}) 08:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

1947–1948 Rajouri massacre

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

The term "Rajouri massacre" or even "massacre" to describe these events are not found in any reliable source. The creator of this page took a two-line blurb from 1947 Jammu massacres#Rajouri and built a shell around it. I can't see how this can be an independent topic worth its own page. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I am withdrawing this nomination for now because new sources have been brought forward. The discussion will continue on the article's talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Many Wikipedia articles are referred to as a "Massacre", even with as few deaths as 10-30 (nowhere close to 30,000 of which many are refugees). Also, the article fits the definition of massacre, exactly like the article 1947 Mirpur Massacre. Below are many reliable sources (note that many of these have not been used in the article 1947 Jammu Massacre, so it is a distinct event) to a Massacre in Rajouri, either using both words in the same sentences (eg. "Massacre of Hindus and Sikhs in Rajouri") or explicitly referring to the event as the "Rajouri Massacre":

http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives1999/99february23.html

https://ikashmir.net/pakraid1947/rajouri.html

The term "Rajouri Massacre" used in the title: https://www.dailyexcelsior.com/tearful-homage-martyrs-1947-massacre-rajouri/

Used in the title again: https://www.dailyo.in/politics/pakistan-indian-army-azad-jammu-kashmir-rajouri-massacre-1947-china-pok/story/1/13643.html

https://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/faultlines/volume1/Fault1-Bloeriatext.htm

A Panun Kashmir (organisation of displaced Kashmiri Hindus) and the paper Kashmir Sentinel release which talks about an article in the Indian Express in 1947 which clearly refers to it as the "Rajouri Massacre" (PDF) http://www.panunkashmir.org/kashmirsentinel/pdf/2007/nov2007.pdf

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.242704/2015.242704.Socio-economic-Roots_djvu.txt

Feel free to add these links as references to the article. I see no need to remove such an article.

Hindian1947 (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per extensive coverage on this scholary source from Cambridge University Press. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. The title (whether this should be described as a massacre or something else) is a matter for talk page discussion, but the events described in this article are clearly notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabor Fabricius

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

This is a dubious article, at best and has been deleted twice via discussion on huwiki, which is concerning given most of the sources are in Hungarian.

I can't reliable sources reporting about his Cannes win, and those that I can find are clearly relying on Wikipedia and were published well after the content here was. He seems to be up and coming but hasn't yet met the bar for notability. Praxidicae (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that there just isn't enough from sources that could be considered reliable Spiderone 13:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Lots of filmmakers get into the Cannes Film Festival, including my domestic partner, but that doesn't make them notable. He won at something called the Cannes Lion, which is not the main stage. There's nothing he's done that is notable. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 22:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

INOKrypt

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

non-notable run of the mill framework Praxidicae (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because the article topic is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:59D:AC1D:148D:9A26:EA35:958B (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly non-notable framework. No mention in significant publications. All sources are to a GitHub page with just two stars and just 12 commits. Johand¹⁹⁹ ^(Talk) 13:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly not notable. If there were an A7 for software it would possibly apply. No sources indicating notability.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Sources were found and the nominator agrees this meets GNG. (non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbery Figures

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

I can find no in-depth coverage in independent sources, that cover this topic. Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it appears to have been a popular series in the 1980s, as suggested by this, this, this, etc., and there is therefore likely to be significant coverage in pre-internet sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is quite a bit of stuff around- I've just been running a search and found a few articles, unfortunately paywalled, but I'm tracking down non paywalled stuff. (the figures did a "tour" of art galleries in 1996), and there are a few snippets in books [4]. Curdle (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Here are three news articles from Trove- there are more.[5] [6][7] Curdle (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: I added a 1989 article from The Age, "'Rubbery Figures' aim at rebound after axe". — Toughpigs (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some of the sources mentioned, others are just passing mentions so of little use, but it's probably enough to satisfy WP:GNG now thanks. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by Nominator - missed the 2018 K-1 title bout. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Ristea

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

Was AfD'd a few years ago, but since there is new information since that AfD, am bringing it back. Still does not pass WP:NKICK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, he does! I know it was deleted but I opened it years later after he fought for the ISKA World Title against Florent Kaouachi. Meci de titlu mondial pentru Cristian Ristea. The article is sourced though. So since then there was this important modification which qualifies it as notable on our site. So he passes WP:NKICK today. .karellian-24 (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Saeed

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:SOAP. He is a run of the mill, both as an activist and as a scholar (only a lecturer). This could have been excused in 2007, but in 2020, everybody knows that we are not a resume service. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Keene Sentinel. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Ticknor (journalist)

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

The Subject of the article is not notable.

The only reference reveals that the name is incorrect.
Page 1 of the referenced PDF calls the subject George Ticknor, however, see PDF page 137 and 139 (page 60-61 in the source document) his correct name was George Benjamin. He used the name Ticknor & Co., when he purchased/managed the NH Sentinel.

After an exhaustive search, I cannot find references to satisfy the Wikipedia requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollifiednow (talk • contribs) 03:38, August 31, 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised I put this one on Wikipedia. You are right; doesn't seem notable. This was one of my early efforts. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I am also surprised it lasted as long as it did. Thank you for taking the trouble to delete it. Library Guy (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC) a.k.a. Bob Burkhardt[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination at this time. @Mollifiednow: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 17:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I don't think there are any reliable sources available. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per AleatoryPonderings below. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In addition to the entry in the (possibly unreliable) encyclopedia on which the article is based, there is also [8], which corroborates the information in Appletons'. I'd say two biographical dictionary entries is enough for WP:BASIC, but these sorts of reference works were a dime a dozen back then, so it's not super clear. There's also [9] (for purposes of WP:V, not WP:N). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any WP: articles on biographical dictionaries as they relate to notability? I've only seen the brief mention of Dictionary of National Biography at WP:ANYBIO. If I'm the only delete vote here, I'll defer to your keep vote. Jmill1806 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jmill1806, The DNB and other publications of a similar calibre are usually good evidence of WP:ANYBIO, but I don't think the dictionaries I've cited rise to that level. I'm not aware of any specific discussion of non-DNB biographical dictionaries in notability essays. I'm inclined to treat them more or less like a magazine profile: WP:SIGCOV, but not evidence of notability on their own. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense to me. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Keene Sentinel, which is perhaps(?) the only thing that he's actually notable for. While generally two biographical dictionaries would be enough for me, looking at them they are pitifully short and lacking in detail. After performing my own, pretty in-depth, search, there's almost no other information available, which means we cannot write a whole article about them. It also seems that the The General Catalogue and a Brief History of Kimball Union Academy wrote about everyone who attended that school, meaning it isn't really indicative of notability here. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with that outcome. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Eddie891. Minimal evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Wikipidea page of Sukaina Khan delete. Please make a new — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E8:EF15:FB49:E480:91DA:12AF:122 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sukaina Khan

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

fails to meet basic GNG as well relevant WP:NACTOR. cited sources are not reliable enough. I don't see she has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions Saqib (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looked at the first nine references. They look like passing mentions, name drops, cast lists, nothing of depth that can support a BLP. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress and model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aliya Ali

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

fails to meet basic GNG as well relevant WP:NACTOR. cited sources are not reliable enough. I don't see she has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Saqib (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: @TamilMirchi:. TamilMirchi is an active editor from the South Asian Subcontinent; specializing in film and motion picture domain. His view will benefit this AfD. -Hatchens (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are passing, name drops, cast lists where is right at the bottom. Nothing of value. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model and actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katya Cengel

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

No clear pass of WP:GNG. Sources do note denote any notability or significance. Primary sources all around. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. Multiple books with multiple reviews. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- From Chernobyl with Love: [10], [11]
- Exiled: [12], [13], [14]
- Bluegrass Baseball: [15]
Keep per AleatoryPonderings and WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NAUTHOR is a higher bar than simply having a few reviews of your works published. To say someone's work has "won significant critical attention" I would like to see substantially more in the way of coverage for her works. That said, the author does in fact pass WP:GNG. She has been interviewed multiple times by KCBX and has received coverage in local publications [16]. Other interviews and sources by reliable publications include: [17] [18] [19] W 42 20:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR as proven by AleatoryPonderings. As demonstrated by W42 and my GoogleNews search, there is also sufficient coverage of Cengel to meet WP:GNG. Samsmachado (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Rapert

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

Cannot seem to establish WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF#C1. Her Scholar profile suggests quite a broad impact in her field. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Her h-index doesn't seem to be that impressive, or am I missing something? Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
h-indices vary widely across fields: higher in the sciences, lower in humanities and social sciences. She is a scholar of marketing, which would presumably fall in the lower h-index category. I was referring primarily to the number of highly-cited papers she has authored or coauthored. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Makes sense. I'd like to rescind said nomination. Apologies for not thinking that detail through. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (add) While the close is a keep, merging the content to another article is a viable alternative, given the short content of the article. But this should be discussed separately. Tone 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four Guns

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any biographical details in secondary sources. He seems to be notable only for having made this quote, which is all that is mentioned about him in various sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sense of notability at all. Inexpiable (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a chief, who visited Washington as a representative of his people, the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. Insofar as we've haven't yet found a lot of writing, this is explained by his own words – "the Indian needs no writing". We should not judge such people by the standards of others – "if the white man loses his paper, he is helpless". (Old Stories, New Ways). Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson. oncamera _{(talk page)} 08:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson and Oncamera: The two criteria for presumed notability at WP:POLITICIAN are:

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. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Which of these two criteria are met? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was a chief of the Oglala. That's a political office of a nation as explained by Andrew Davidson in the first sentence of his vote. Try reading. oncamera _{(talk page)} 10:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN also states that "Just being an elected local official...does not guarantee notability". The Oglala article states that the population of the tribe was about 5,537 people, about the same size as a small city. Are you suggesting being the chief or a small tribe guarantees notability, despite no biographical details in reliable sources? Magnolia677 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was a tribal judge not chief, the article was originally misquoting the source, more sources have been added. -- GreenC 13:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: It's pretty shitty of you to penalize the "small" population of Oglala as irrelevant considering the acts of genocide that they had to survive in order to grow their population to over 40,000 today. Being a judge of their early reservation tribal government is still important. Native American tribes are sovereign nations and should be treated properly on Wikipedia as such. oncamera _{(talk page)} 20:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. A group of 4,000 people or a group of 40,000 people can call themselves whatever they want, but nobody would consider such a relatively small group of people a nation or a country or even a city. The size of the polity matters for purposes of NPOL. Le v!v ich 21:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you disagree. The United States government treats the tribes as sovereign nations per the Bureau of Indian Affairs FAQ, including the treaties made at the time of this man's life. It sounds as if you want the policies of Wikipedia to exclude Native tribes based on their sizes after European diseases and wars decimated their populations. Very biased. oncamera _{(talk page)} 23:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop attacking editors you disagree with. NPOL isn't based on US gov't designations. It's perfectly legitimate to say that a person who was a judge for a group of 4-40 thousand doesn't qualify as holding national/regional office under NPOL, and that has nothing to do with bias. Le v!v ich 23:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I love how you personally attack every single person who may have been or is a descendant of this NATION of American Indians and then turn around and use that logic on another editor when you are challenged and your feelings are hurt. I find your personal description of this proud and important NATION of American Indians offensive and biased and, tbh, borderline racist. San Marino is a country and a nation of 33,000 citizens. They are considered one of the smallest sovereign states in the world. Have you argued with Wikipedia that San Marino isn't a country by your standards applied here? That their leaders/spokesmen/representatives don't deserve to be called national politicians?Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not attacked anyone. Le v!v ich 18:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: You disenfranchised almost anyone who comes from a NATION (American Indian or not) with less than 40,000 people in the population by saying they are irrelevant. You perpetuated your personal views as policy of Wikipedia when there is no population maximum or minimum listed in said policy and then used that as your argument to relegate a prominent person from their history into obscurity within this encyclopedia of WORLD importance, not just what is important to the user Levivich. And then you are going to say you didn't attack anyone?Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've disenfranchised no one. Your choice of language is ridiculous. Le v!v ich 18:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many small sovereign states which are internationally recognised – see microstate. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widely quoted, known for his elegantly stated views on Indian culture and critical of the tyranny of the written word. He said in jest: "I once heard one of their preachers say that no white man was admitted to heaven, unless there were writings about him a great book." -- GreenC 13:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per WP:HEY improvements to the article made by GreenC - the article now has seven book references which unequivocally establishes notability. Netherzone (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apparently he was not a chief, but a judge. All the references are just quote books that include quotes by him. And consequently, our article is just a collection of his quotes. Being quoted doesn't make a person notable. There don't appear to be any secondary sources that actually talk about the subject of this article. When was he born? Where was he born? When did he die? All we seem to have are a few quotes, and that's not enough for an encyclopedia article. Le v!v ich 20:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY not the same article which was nominated. GreenC has polished this article so future generations of readers can learn. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject specific guidelines for politicians is clear. He was the judge of his tribe, quite a notable position. Dream Focus 00:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons cited by user:Andrew Davidson. Not the article or the sources it was when nominated for deletion. Meets WP:GNG and WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't need to give my reasons. You can see the dozen or so other AfD's on American Indian articles to know why...or don't. It matters not.Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Straddles both criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. A hint of WP:AUTHOR, though he was quoted and not published. Wouldn't argue with WP:GNG either. I'll add him to the list of names I'll seek in the 20+ American Indian books I'm getting from the library. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Rolleston-Dalzell, 14th Earl of Carnwath

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

Also:

Appears to be entirely fictional content. These articles were created by single-purpose users User:JesseWall and User:Ruewall. Opera hat (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all as hoaxes. Arthur Dalzell, 13th Earl of Carnwath and one of its sources say the title became dormant after his death, so that takes care of the 14th and 15th. Unable to find any trace of the other two either. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Obviously a hoax. Peerage.com or any other reliable website relating to British Aristocracy do not have any pages for men with these names. TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above – clear hoax Aza24 (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all per WP:TNT, WP:SNOW, and WP:SALT. "That's not how this works!" Bearian (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eyerinator

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

commendable for a middle schooler to create this but otherwise has received no coverage and isn't covered in any medical journals. Praxidicae (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Broken links suggesting no coverage to speak of. Plus it wouldn't be the first headmounted display ever made. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.50-120 Federal FireStick

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

The whole article is WP:JUNK and feels a lot like some kind of user manual for this non-notable muzzleloader system. Few sources exist, with little information. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nick Fury. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate versions of Nick Fury

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

The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Fiction should be summarized per WP:WAF if there are no reliable sources to support it. The only secondary sources are about the comics rather than the character, which have their own articles. TTN (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nick Fury per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced content to Nick Fury if this is not there already. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as compromise if the AFD is going that way. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT and shouldn't be spunout into its own article. Would be justified in deleting. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Mans Fancy, Maryland

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

Appears to be a horse stable, not a community. See [20]. Listed here alongside a long list of subdivisions and neighborhoods within another community (Manchester), few of which look notable. Another source suggests it's a boarding stable within Manchester. I'm not finding anything that calls this anything other than a stable or subdivision, and it doesn't appear on pre-GNIS topos, or even the most recent ones. Whatever this is/was, it doesn't appear to have been the sort of place to pass WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GEOLAND per nom. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google Maps indicates it's a tiny road with ten homes in the neighborhood, but no indication it's a distinct notable community. Newspapers.com results are for the phrase, a horse by this name, and some addresses on the street. Reywas92^Talk 16:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND KidAd talk 18:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I may have a copy of this ADC map somewhere in the house, but as these maps label every subdivision and lots of other facilities, resort to these maps as a source of names is almost certain to fail notability. In any case the topos don't show anything here. Mangoe (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 13:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NSoft

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

This article was created several months ago as a user's first article, but has remained unreviewed. It describes a company going about its business in gaming industry software, but references to financial results and fastest-growing sector listings fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The firm was one of 12 in a Bosnia and Herzegovina Foreign Investment Promotion Agency list, but I am unconvinced that this or anything found in searches is sufficient to demonstrate attained notability so I am bringing it to AfD to seek a consensus position. AllyD (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2020 (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, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create, 2013-03 ✗ G8

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the absence of reliable sources with in-depth coverage, I don't see the keep argument as persuasive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assembly Line Entertainment

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

Notability not established- the company (as opposed to the films) only receives a passing mention in a couple of the sources. 1292simon (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried to see the production house as notable. But have found the two wiki links under filmography section Mondo Hollywoodland and Money, Fascism, and Some Sort of Acid go to Janek Ambros, don't know what that could mean and if that was inadvertent. But one could have some wrong impression that all of their films have separate page. I did not change it to let others see and judge. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 19:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has produced many notable films that justify the notability of the company. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Weren't you the one who nominated Sukumar Writings and Krishna Productions for deletion even though they produced multiple notable films? -- Ab207 (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. Lack WP:SIGCOV. -Hatchens (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Star (technical analysis)

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

None of the three links in the article point to anything that mentions the term "Golden Star" and it is not clear that it is in common usage. A search for reliable sources in news articles, books or the internet fails to turn up anything significant, as far as I can see. — Bilorv (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article is about the technical analysis of stock prices in general, not the mining company (entering "golden star technical analysis" in gsearch brings up lots of pages of technical analysis of the company, that is confusing/annoying:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find anything to suggest notability or that this term is anything more than a neologism. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. JGHowes ^talk 22:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Singh Arora

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

All the references are news articles about the same fact/event that - "He is the first Sikh official in the Governor's House, Lahore.".In news for one event only and fails WP:GNG. Zoodino (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE: There may be lack of trusted references and these poor references may be removed, but that is due to less online content about the minorty classes/marginal communities. The subject is important and notable enough to be an Wikipedia item. However, may need some improvement. So I vote for non-deletion of this item. Jagmit Singh Brar 16:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagmit Singh Brar (talk • contribs)
Keep This article now has 6 references from major newspapers and news websites of India, Pakistan, France and the United Kingdom. When international news media considers it fit for news coverage like this, how can it be non-notable? Replaced and fixed all references on the article that needed fixing. Thanks...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ngrewal1:, Please read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:1E. Zoodino (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in light of the fact that Indira Gandhi was murdered by her Sikh bodyguards, this is a most significant event, yea, even in Pakistan. As above, The subject is important and notable enough to be an Wikipedia item.. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable minor functionary. This "first x to do y" is getting to be excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, First person from minority to be in a notable office and appears to pass WP:1E (towards Keep) and fails WP:GNG towards Delete. The article may be kept in future.. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: there seems to be disagreement on whether WP:1E applies here or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I cannot see a consensus to merge or redirect this and the strength of the dignity / individual identity argument put up requires a consensus to not give it weight. This therefore defaults to delete. I should also say that the quality and tone of the discussion is to be commended Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Grant Bennett

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

Bennett is not notable for anything she actually did. She has very limited coverage because she dated one famous person and was married to another. Notability is not inhereited, and she was not in the very small class of wives who get so much coverage or have some sort of position by virtue of being a wife leading to notability. The later is essentially limited to queens consort and first ladies, the former needs much more coverage than we have John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. FWIW the article was likely a WP:COI problem in the first place. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A non-notable person. Less Unless (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tony Bennett. Unlike many biographies, he doesn't have a "personal life" section (or he may have had one, but it was removed per BLP; I haven't checked), so the sourced information in this article could go there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTINHERITED and as the acting career doesn't quite live up to WP:NACTOR. EverybodyEdits (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay on arguments to avoid during AfD discussions. The essay states: "This section is not a content guideline or policy." It is never a reason to delete content, only an admonishment against !voters during AfD discussions. -- GreenC 15:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, WP:INVALIDBIO makes the exact same point (That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability.) and is a notability guideline. Every time you see someone citing WP:NOTINHERITED in this way, you can just mentally substitute WP:INVALIDBIO. TompaDompa (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about that, but it's also a little different because it is part of the Notability guideline which allows for inheritance when there is significant coverage eg. baby of royalty. If they are citing WP:NOTINHERITED when there is (arguably) significant coverage it becomes confusing what they are trying to communicate: no inheritance (invalid), lack of significant coverage (valid), or both (valid). -- GreenC 04:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am going to swim against the current here. She passes WP:NACTOR even without her marriage to a superstar, and relationship with a legend where did you go Joe DiMaggio?. Some sources in the article go toward notability 1. Her IMDb shows that she has been an actress and was in noteworthy productions: she had recurring roles on The Lieutenant (TV series) (It aired on NBC on Saturday evenings in the 1963–1964 television schedule.) as well as other lesser roles in Hollywood productions. If we must remove I suggest a merge with Tony Bennett as a WP:ATD. Wm335td (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 14.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writing as an editor, I have no opinion about the subject's notability, but I oppose a merger or redirect for the reasons expressed by S Marshall in the deletion review linked to above: "I think it's important to treat women as people in their own right and not as accessories to their husbands or their husbands' careers. That's why I'm not really very comfortable with the practice of redirecting a woman's name to that of her husband; the overtones of that are unfortunate. I'm particularly uncomfortable with redirecting a woman's name to that of a man she divorced thirteen years ago." Sandstein 19:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMDb is not a reliable source, and should not be treated as such. If you cannot source something in any other way than we cannot in any reasonable way know that it shows significance, and maybe not even that it is true. The one keep vote relies far too much on IMDb, and so I would say there is no valid keep argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given by Wm335td and Sandstein. Balle010 (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balle010, I have not expressed a preference between keep and delete. Sandstein 09:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on balance. We're weaving a biography out of content that's about other people. I don't find any substantive sources about Ms. Bennett, and that's a massive red flag. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I get why we might not want to have a redirect, but frankly, his article is where we have coverage. Redirects are navigational aids, not a political or personal statement. " Redirects aid navigation and searching by allowing a page to be reached under alternative titles." If someone is looking to learn what Wikipedia has about her, that's the right place to send them. End of story. As to notability, I can't find non-trivial coverage in things other than gossip-level stuff in the NYP and the Enquirer. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG - notability not inherited and this is at risk of becoming a WP:COATRACK. Distant second choice redirect, but Sandstein's concerns should be noted. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone give a policy-based reason not to have a redirect? Are we purely in IAR territory? If so, isn't RfD the right place for that discussion? Hobit (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And more to the point, I can't square not having a redirect and yet still mentioning her in the article. I mean the redirect just makes it easier to find that material. Nothing more. @Stifle and JzG: Hobit (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge we should always consider WP:ATD-M. The person may merit an article based on a combination of her acting career and her association with JD and TB. A merge with TB would be my choice if the article is not kept. Ritchie makes a good point, Tony Bennett doesn't have a "personal life" section. Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Query https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/sandra_p_grant list more roles she was in than what you find at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0335639/ Did she have any roles which are notable enough to make her notable via the subject specific guidelines for actors? Dream Focus 16:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a different Sandra Grant (IMDb), with the credit for The Lieutenant being an error. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, makes sense. Odd she doesn't have an official website or social networking site. Dream Focus 17:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a different Sandra Grant in The Lieutenant . That other grant is not old enough to have appeared in the series 1963-64. Lightburst (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. That Rotten Tomatoes page is for the younger Sandra Grant, but also accidentally includes a role in The Lieutenant which was played by the older Sandra Grant. They made a mistake and built a WP:FRANKENSTEIN. TompaDompa (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Grant Bennett is the correct age to have appeared in the series. So I do not know what we are discussing. She would have been 23-24 at the time of the series. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rotten Tomatoes filmography contains roles played by two different people named Sandra Grant: Sandra Grant Bennett (older) and Sandra P. Grant (younger). The only role listed on the Rotten Tomatoes filmography which was played by Sandra Grant Bennett is the one in The Lieutenant, with the rest played by Sandra P. Grant. That they are both listed under the name "Sandra P. Grant" is the result of an error by Rotten Tomatoes. Nobody is disputing that Sandra Grant Bennett was in The Lieutenant. TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect/merge to Tony Bennett, for basically the same reasons as Sandstein and S Marshall gave. It's actually even worse than they let on; they divorced in 2007, but had separated as early as 1979. Redirecting a woman's name to a man she separated from almost half a century ago is not just a bad look, it's a blatant example of the kind of WP:Systemic bias that Wikipedia is regularly and rightfully criticised for displaying, perpetuating, and compounding (it wouldn't surprise me if the fact that we're even having this discussion gets picked up by one or more media organizations and reported as an example of Gender bias on Wikipedia).
I think it's telling that nobody has even suggested (or pre-emptively dismissed) merging/redirecting to her daughter Antonia Bennett instead. C'mon people, this is not some outrageously novel solution that requires a great deal of lateral thinking – Carrie Fisher#Early life mentions her parents' divorce and subsequent marriages to other people (and her mother's later divorce, for that matter), as a comparison. The argument that Tony Bennett doesn't have a "personal life" section rings especially hollow in light of this – neither does Antonia Bennett (nor an "early life" one).
On the whole, I say delete (I don't think that she passes WP:NACTOR based on what I've seen so far and her previous relationships with celebrities do not confer notability either per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO), but either keeping or merging/redirecting to Antonia Bennett would be a way, way better alternative than merging/redirecting to Tony Bennett. TompaDompa (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect/merge to her ex-husband for reasons TompaDompa just said. In the past 90 days the article's pageviews are 11,109, most of that on August 3rd to 5th for some reason. [21] No idea what's going on, did she get coverage somewhere during that time period? Dream Focus 18:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you both mean. She is TB's ex-wife and has children with him. She is in the TB infobox and in the article. Also see this article. She even bears his name. I still think it is a keep, but as an alternative to deletion... a merge there seems appropriate. Lightburst (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can quote S Marshall from the WP:DELREV again if that makes it easier to understand: I think it's important to treat women as people in their own right and not as accessories to their husbands or their husbands' careers. That's why I'm not really very comfortable with the practice of redirecting a woman's name to that of her husband; the overtones of that are unfortunate. I'm particularly uncomfortable with redirecting a woman's name to that of a man she divorced thirteen years ago. That's divorced thirteen years ago, but separated from forty-one years ago, mind you. I don't think She is in the TB infobox and in the article is much of an argument, because we have a way more appropriate target for a merge or redirect in Antonia Bennett. You could of course say that unlike in the article about her ex-husband, she is not in her daughter's infobox and only mentioned briefly in her article but that discrepancy is part of the problem that we do not wish to compound. TompaDompa (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. You are quoting a single editor's statement, not any guideline or policy. It is more of a personal feeling than anything else. As a redirect or merge - she is well-known for the marriage and the article's are about her marriage to TB. Lightburst (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbust understands, but disagrees at a philosophical level. He hates to see things deleted. To him and to those who agree with him, an AfD is a contest in which any outcome other than "delete" is a victory, and "delete" is a defeat. To this mindset, WP:ATD is not a consideration to inform editorial judgment, but rather of a piece of heavy artillery with which to hold off the deletionists. Such editors will never be persuaded by an argument like mine.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a rather unjust characterization of the person. Is it because he is an active member of the Article Rescue Squadron? I'm a member and I was convinced. I never argue for anything I don't believe in and I doubt most others do so either. Dream Focus 23:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall A rather unfair characterization of an editor who disagrees with your opinion. For the record, I !vote delete quite often. I will forget about your WP:PA because I think you are a good editor who I have seen around the project and you may be having a bad day. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel insulted or attacked? I used no attacking words, and I described the approach that both of you take to the vast majority of AfDs in an entirely non-pejorative as well as accurate way. I thought I was being completely respectful.—S Marshall T/C 09:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a big problem with starting the article by saying she was in relationships with two famous men and then nothing in the article doing ANYTHING to suggest notability. That’s not what Wikipedia is for. Trillfendi (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, if you feel that having a redirect is offensive, fine I guess. But A) we don't make it harder to find things because of a "bad look". We don't make things harder to find because of issues of systematic bias. A redirect literally means nothing to non-Wikipedia people--it just makes it more likely they will find the most information we have on her. B) If you all feel we should, in general, not have divorced people redirect to their spouses, propose that change. As it is, it's a purely IAR argument. I don't think it makes any sense (see previous note about only being noticed by Wikipedia people). And to be clear, I fully understand why this could be considered offensive--that makes perfect sense. But is the next step to remove any mention of her in his article? I don't see how just deleting the redirect will change anything other than potentially make it harder to find what we have on her. Hobit (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have anything on her in the other article other than she spent years living with him while he was still married to another woman, then after his first divorce married him and they had two daughters. Once her book is out, if it gets reviewed, which it most likely would, we can put a redirect to the article for it. Otherwise, no reason to have a redirect at all if the article is deleted. Dream Focus 23:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other than if someone wants to know who she is, we can tell them all we have. Hobit (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: I have to agree with you. I could be notable by the standards some are saying here. I helped Will Smith do an inner-city project in Philadelphia one time. We shook hands and talked for a few minutes. I sang with Lana Del Rey at Coachella one year (Nevermind that I was in the crowd). Who you marry or date doesn't make you notable. I love articles about women and I want to defend them all but you have to give me something to defend.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTV HD India

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines. There are no sources that meet WP:SIGCOV covering the subject directly and in-depth. Two editors have attempted to redirect this to Star India but it has been objected to and reverted. I personally think delete is better than a redirect, but either way I am bringing it here for discussion. There are a lot of these channels for Star India that do not meet notability guidelines and possibly should be group nominated for deletion or redirected. I am also nominating the following related pages:

// Timothy :: talk 14:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. A standalone article for every TV channel in the network is not warranted and the author is a blocked WP:UPE. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all due to zero evidence of notability Spiderone 09:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: The refs provided in the articles only indicate that the channels exist/existed. Nothing substantial to indicate notability. TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksij Kerekesha

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

Ukrainian composer and singer. Only reference is his website. Not clear whether he, or the band, are really notable. Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ☆☆☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆☆☆ 20:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Editors do not agree whether this event falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Plausible arguments are made by both sides. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Nathaniel Woods

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, virtually all the national coverage is in early March 2020 (from 5 or 6 March, when he was executed, and from 13 March, when his sister confronted the governor), the other news articles are in local news outlets such as this or in advocacy groups. It's remarkably hard to find coverage before or surrounding the weeks of his execution that would indicate enduring significance and notability. While that may change in the future, Wikipedia cannot keep an article that may become notable at some unspecified time in the future. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it looks like there are still articles about this coming out. There's definitely coverage of it from after March. [22], and [23] and [24], and [25], and [26] are all from May or later. It was a significant and controversial event due to a man being executed when he didn't have anything to do with the murders. Wes sideman (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is enough of an event to lift it above NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For same reason as above. Inexpiable (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was far from an average execution. Passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ongoing controversy. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the continuing interest. Most of the links from Wes sideman simply say that the Walter Barton execution was the first one since the Nathaniel Woods execution (a longer-than-normal gap because of COVID). The one that isn't, [27], mentions that the protest led by Woods' sister had participants few in number. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Onyschenko

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

Article about a subjects that fails WP:N and WP:FILMMAKER. Claim of award with no sources to back up. Sources provided do not meet WP:RS standard. Lapablo (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous deletion discussion was closed as "no consensus" less than two months ago. Does the nominator have a new argument to present? pburka (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep. WP:DPAFD requires that editors allow a reasonable amount of time before renominating. The nominator has not explained why we should revisit the discussion that was just completed in August. pburka (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How this wasn’t deleted in the first place was an editorial failure. This is source-less and there are no reliable sources out there. It’s also promotional. Trillfendi (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has been 8 weeks since the Afd and don't see any progress. No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 17:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a central princible of Wikipedia is verrifiability which means we need to have the sources in the article not vague claims they may exist somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phoe Thaw

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

As another editor said, "Notability for MMA is established by fighting in a top tier promotion, ONE is not considered top tier. Lethwei doesn't currently have such notability guides and people would have to pass general notability guidelines, which I would say this article and sources at least currently don't show." Simply does not pass WP:NMMA. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no discussion in any of his life except some little related news about him fighting, so didn't pass GNG. (F5pillar---/ ^{'Messager🖋📩}) 10:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA, routine sports reporting is insufficient to meet WP:GNG, and there's no evidence he meets WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Butler

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

Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Surely there must be some sources available if he was mayor for (does double take) 55 years, continuously? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's several sources with non-trvial coverage over an extended period, both local and regional, not limited to a feature in the New York Times. That meets WP:NPOL with room to spare. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes notability. Inexpiable (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely not a run of the mill local mayor. Mccapra (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa R. Fredenthal-Lee

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

PROD declined because previously nominated, rationale was Promotional article with no indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Almost no sourcing comes up on a google search, save a single profile in The Press Democrat. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimo perdono

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

Non notable film, tagged since Nov 2018 for notability. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing by film database sites and other wikis. Even the Italian article is barebones without any good citations to help this pass WP:NFILM. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not another IMdB. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above Spiderone 08:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rukhsana Naz

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

Fails WP:Bio. Pamzeis (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Murder of Rukhsana Naz, per WP:VICTIM. The murder received significant coverage in national press in the UK and abroad. Captain Calm (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of Wikipedia biogs (and some "murder of..") for the victims of honour killings in the UK and elsewhere - perhaps they all fail the biog criteria? Do they all need to move to "murder of"? Ukurko (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are examples of existing pages -

So-called honour killings in the United Kingdom:

Shafilea Ahmed
Rania Alayed
The killing of Surjit Athwal was planned in the UK and done in India
Murder of Tulay Goren
Murder of Heshu Yones

So-called honour killings of people with Kurdish ethnic heritage:

Pela Atroshi (Iraqi Kurdistan)
Fadime Şahindal (Sweden)
Hatun Sürücü (Germany)

So-called honour killings of other people with Iraqi national heritage:

Noor Almaleki (United States)

Ukurko (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:Subjects notable only for one event: when someone is only well known for one notable event in their life, then policy is usually to make the article about the event itself. Murder victim Sharon Tate, for example, is notable enough for an article about her life and career. But some of those other articles on murder victims you list above should probably be renamed. Captain Calm (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, well made - happy to agree this should move to "Murder of" Ukurko (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Murder of Ukurko (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move the article until the discussion is finished, thanks. Captain Calm (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - sorry, thanks for moving it back - I keep my hands off it for now Ukurko (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and, as per Captain Calm, move to "Murder of Rukhsana Naz"; I've found plenty of media coverage of this event with minimal searching, both at the time and beyond. --DSQ (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Just to add that I'm expanding the article using the sources I've fouond, but unfortunately I don't have much time right now, so it looks a bit of a mess! I will tidy it up and expand it further, but it might take a while. :) --DSQ (talk) 11:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep but properly expand.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep - needs expansion, improvements. but is within WP:GNG. Also rename article to Murder of Rukhsana Naz. BabbaQ (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename to Murder of Rukhsana Naz. Inexpiable (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following captain calm. Cambial foliage❧ 23:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:EVENT, the murder of Naz, as well as receiving a lot of press coverage, and involving wider discussions ie. "Forced Marriage - Culture or Crime?", "Historical Overview of U.S. Policy and Legislative Responses to Honor-Based violence, Forced Marriage, and Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting" (Sept 2018) (page 42), "Forced Marriage", was one of the key events that led the Home Office to look into forced marriages (p. 10). does need to be renamed to Murder of Rukhsana Naz. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I'm withdrawing my nomination and this page could be speedily kept. Pamzeis (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Mosley (US lawyer)

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

No substantial coverage, all the articles appear to be incidental and focus on clients or cases this person is involved in. Being the lawyer for a notable person does not infer notability. Shritwod (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written. Some high-profile clients, but nothing that rises to the level of independent encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 22:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is already clearly notable. If the subject was a street guy without professional notability, he wouldn't have been hired by the celebrity clients. Salbador7070 (talk) 9:16, 16 September 2020
- I would hazard that notability sufficient to represent celebrities is not the same thing as encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 04:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found a source that gives WP:SIGCOV to the subject and I think that if a more advanced search was conducted more sources may be found. Northern Escapee (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A claim has been made that a source has been found, but what this is has not been disclosed, much less added to the article. BD2412 T 00:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes my usual standards for lawyers/jurists. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 23:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hindemburg Melão Jr.

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

Notability concerns. Previously deleted in 2008, but recreated in 2016 by an SPA. Deleted twice on Portuguese wiki. The summary from 2008's AFD still applies - "Lots of claims to notability in the text of the article but on closer inspection it does not seem to me that they hold up." The only reference that appears at all substantial and independent is [28] - a profile in a local newspaper. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2008-05 ✗ delete

Related discussions: 2008-05 Petri Widsten ✗ delete

Logs: 2008-05 ✗ deleted, 2008-05 ↻ restored, 2008-05 ✗ PROD

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think he is notable as a correspondence chess player. He had a peak Elo rating of 2489 but doesn't hold a title. I don't think the entries in the Guinness Book of Records are enough either. The only substantial coverage I could find is a curriculum vitae at the Sigma Society, which is clearly self-written. P-K3 (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Hits WP:GEOLAND as verifiably a village, discussion about renaming can occur elsewhere if necessary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saroha Rajgan

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

Unreferenced stub about non-notable geo place, cannot find any sources (at least under the name as currently rendered), not even on Google Maps; fails WP:NGEO and possibly also WP:V. Creating editor keeps recreating the article despite earlier warnings, and a recent speedy was declined as it'd been nominated on wrong grounds, hence this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Kallar Syedan Tehsil per WP:NPLACE: must be a very tiny village indeed, if it exists. I've copied this link from creator's sandbox, which mentions a village called Saroha. Captain Calm (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move and improve, per discussion with Coolabahapple below. Captain Calm (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Draft:Saroha Rajgan, Draft:Saroha Rajgan 2, and the main author's other recent edits to related pages. I mentioned this because if the outcome is delete or redirect, a few weeks of create- protection or page-protection on the redirect may be in order. Withholding actual "!vote" since I haven't researched this place yet. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that, as per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPLACE a single source will do. Note also that IMO, no speedy deletion criterion applies to this article, and the speedy was properly declined. If no one can find a reliable source, then this will have to be deleted. If there is a plausible claim that a source exists and time is needed to research it, the page could be moved to draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this village definitely exists (have a look at gmaps here), anyhoo, meets WP:NGEO as a legally recognised populated place, government notification document has been added to the article, here is a government valuation document that lists a number of properties in Saroha, btw, Sardar Tariq Masood, Chief justice of the Lahore High Court, and a Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, was born in this village (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: yes there are sufficient RS to verify Saroha exists (including the external link I added), but (forgive my ignorance) does Rajgan mean "village" or similar in one of the languages of Rawalpindi district? I'd change my vote to "keep" if "Saroha Rajgan" is another name for "Saroha". Or we could simply move the article to "Saroha" without redirect. Captain Calm (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same, as the referenced PDF or the above-mentioned link have no instance of 'Saroha Rajgan' per se. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to move to "Saroha", Saroha looks to be the official name (adding "Rajgan" (means "princes"? (see here, "Furthermore, there were various compound titles simply including other princely styles, such as: ... Maharaja-i-Rajgan: great prince amongst princes, "Rulers ... Raja-e Rajgan ... Maharaja-e Rajgan)) while "...(village/place) of princes"?) may be a local unofficial variation? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, changing my position to "move and improve" above. Captain Calm (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 13:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Baby Pink

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:NME .It's all refbombing if one checks the cited sources. - hako9 (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2020 (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) 00:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everstone

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

Built by a sockpuppet, edited by sockpuppets WP:SOCK. Besides, fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and lacks WP:SIGCOV. - Hatchens (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2020 (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) 00:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-02 ✗ G11

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some references that mention the company but none that meet our criteria for establishing notability. References which rely substantially on interviews fail WP:ORGIND. Likewise details which are copied from the company website or PR fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Mint article is quite substantial; while based upon an interview IMO is more of a feature article, and does start to build a case for notability. Business Line is a simple interview. I haven't been able to find any other coverage with any significance - lots of trivial mentions in PE announcements, corporate activity, etc. Overall, there isn't significant coverage to meet WP:NCORP. -M.Nelson (talk) 12:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equistone Partners Europe

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

Fails WP:GNG and lack WP:SIGCOV . -Hatchens (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on *this company* and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches using both the current name and the predecessor Barclays Private Equity find announcements of various deals from the original buyout onwards to Moody's Analytics Knowledge Services, but these fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH and I am not seeing evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rameez Raja (actor)

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

This is a case of WP:Too soon in which the subject has starred in less than three films. These discussions show that playing the lead in two films is not multiple: [29] [30]. Three or more films is notable as shown by this discussion [31]. This actor who played the lead in two films was deleted: [32]. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2020 (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, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-12 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as of now upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 23:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Mary Jane Watson

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

Article is entirely WP:OR fancruft based on primary sources and a WP:CONTENTFORK that does not have sources to meet WP:GNG. BEFORE showed Fancruft/Listcruft articles.

Since this is entirely WP:OR fancruft and lacks proper sources, it should not be merged. // Timothy :: talk 00:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The OP seems to be nominating just about every Alternate versions article they can find. The rationale of this nomination is also identical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of Kitty Pryde, where I was able to find coverage from reliable third party sources, making the claims of WP:BEFORE somewhat dubious. As of now, I have no formal vote, but I might do a source check later on. Dark knight 2149 09:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles I've nominated have closed as Delete. [33], [34], [35] (group nomination of 7 articles) and others that have been nominated have also been deleted [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. // Timothy :: talk 13:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't excuse or address my concern at all. If anything, it only highlights why future rediscussion is inevitable.

In this nomination, virtually every vote was from users known to vote "Delete/merge" on every nomination. Even skimming through it, the WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSCRUFT is not difficult to spot.
This was closed on a whopping two votes, one of which was questionable in its reasoning.
With this one, the fact that you crammed eight different articles into a single nomination is the problem. In fact, at least one of those (Alternative versions of Batman) passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN rather easily.
This nomination failed to cite a legitimate rationale.
This one is fine.
This one also fails to cite a legitimate rationale that complies with WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, and WP:DELREASON, and also suffers from a lack of voting.
This is more of the same.

Overall, volume of nominations isn't a strong argument. Dark knight 2149 20:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:WAF. It is not a proper content split, and the current content is not particularly worth merging. TTN (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mary Jane Watson per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mary Jane Watson and then limit to those points that can be adequately and reliably sourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Nothing wrong with multiple identical nominations if the affected articles are nearly identical. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TTN. Current content worth merging, I think not._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If someone wanted to add any notable variants of the character that actually have some secondary sources that indicate some notability to the main Mary Jane Watson article, that would be fine. But, since this current article does not actually contain any reliable, secondary sources, there is nothing here that would really be needed or appropriate to Merge in order to do so. Rorshacma (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge topic fails WP:GNG and WP:WAF and not an appropriate split from the main topic. No objections to expanding it, in proportion, at the main article, and someone is welcome to summarize the most relevant parts from this non-notable spinout. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per TTN. There isn't coverage in reliable secondary sources to make this a notable topic outside of the character's main article. Any coverage should go there. Jontesta (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Cerda

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

WP:BLP of a small-town mayor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not all given an automatic notability freebie just because they exist -- the notability test for a mayor is the ability to write a substantive and well-sourced article about her political significance: specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects she had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But the only notability claim being attempted here is of the "first member of X group to accomplish this not inherently notable thing in her own region" variety, which is still not an instant notability pass in the absence of a lot more media coverage than this -- and the only references being shown at all are her self-published biographical page on the city's website, and a campaign brochure on a voter information website, neither of which are notability-supporting sources. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First x in y does not normally work to make one notable. I am not sure I even trust the sources to have considered how many people have been mayors in California to have any confidence in the "first Native American mayor" designation. Considering how many people live in Los Angeles County, any place with under 100,000 is not going to be significant enough to make the mayor notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gardena, California is a city where if there is enough third party information about the mayor, an article could be created. Additionally, being the first Native American mayor in the state may be a claim that passed WP:NPOL (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). At this point, as Bearcat describes, there is not enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG or any verification of the claim to be the first tribal member to serve as a California mayor. --Enos733 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

808Melo

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

The artist have not done anything significant so far. There are some news coverage about him but most of which are either promotional or having passing mention. He may be considered as WP:TOOSOON and not complying WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV Chiro725 (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chiro725 (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chiro725 (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. Sources for the article include Billboard Magazine that featured an 808Melo article along with Pop Smoke for reaching number one on its Hot 100 Artist Chart and The New York Times discussed in three articles. 808Melo is a living person of considerable notability. 808Melo is a multiplatinum producer who has reached number one on the Billboard 200 charts as a songwriter and producer for the late rapper Pop Smoke Shoot for the Stars, Aim For the Moon as well as two charting mixtapes from Pop Smoke. The article includes many citations from credible, independent and reliable sources including but not limited to Billboard Magazine, NY Times, Complex Magazine, Pitchfork, Genius.com, Vice.com, The Independent Newspaper from the United Kingdom, etc. The articles feature information about the music production of 808Melo and the artists such as Pop Smoke and Fivio Foreign. Pop Smoke’s discography is published in Wikipedia as well as his biography and 808Melo is the primary producer responsible for the success of all of the music released by Pop Smoke.

Tepidyears777 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

808Melo has been discussed in The Wall Street Journal, The Billboard Magazine and The New York Times. The article provided citations from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and Billboard Magazine. Article provided independently that 808Melo is a person of great notability since he was named as the number one artist, producer songwriter on Billboard Hot 100 in July of 2020 along with Pop Smoke. He also produced the certified platinum single by the RIAA “Dior” and the gold certified single “Welcome To The Party”, citations are provided to verify this information and it is also stated within the Wikipedia biography of Pop Smoke that 808Melo is the producer of these singles along with many others from the catalog of Pop Smoke. Tepidyears777 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, please see WP:INHERIT. Also, a passing mention in multiple sources does not make anyone notable, please see WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Only that he has been the music producer of some of the songs of Pop Smoke do not make him notable. --Chiro725 (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to locate any significant biographical information in secondary sources, just passing mention. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be deleted because 808Melo was not a mere mention or inheritance in articles upon review of the citations please find that he was the co-feature and co-subject of article subject along with Pop Smoke in a primary source, Billboard Magazine that is the leading music industry publication in the world. On July 14,2020 he was top artist on the Billboard Hot 100 Artists, Producers, Songwriters as he was credited as the producer of 6 songs that charted on the Billboard Hot 100 from the Shoot For the Stars, Aim For the Moon. https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/chart-beat/9418319/pop-smoke-808melobeats-rule-hot-100-songwriters-producers-charts. 808Melo produced every song on Pop Smoke’s Meet the Woo mixtape and this was confirmed in an article in the New York Times (citation included in the article https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/arts/music/pop-smoke-rap.html.)He produced almost all of the songs on Meet the Woo 2, the second mixtape of Pop Smoke. The producer of a musical song usually has 50 percent of the songwriting credits as well as 50 percent of the copyright to the songs and 808Melo produced Pop Smoke’s biggest hits “Dior”, “Welcome to the Party”, “The Woo” with 50 Cent and Roddy Ricch.

Do Not Delete - Provided significant biographical information in primarty sources, not just passing mention.

Tepidyears777 (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well-sourced and covers a significant area of current music. His notability is considerable within his field. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with RobinCarmody (the subject is notable and the article is well-sourced). palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 00:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with RobinCarmody and Palindrome. The article is well-sourced. AshMusique (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eseress (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Round Table Pizza. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William R. Larson

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

This article started out as part family obituary, part blatant advert for a restaurant chain: [41]. Following cleanup, there's no indication of how he meets WP:BIO as a businessman, with the only WP:Reliable sources cited being short obituaries and a passing mention in Fast Company in connection with the notable restaurant chain he founded. External links has now been WP:NOTEBOMBed with links mostly about his company, plus a Justia link about a court case in which he was involved. The little content worth merging already exists at the company article. Captain Calm (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :William R. Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) View: KEEP. Disclaimer: I'm new so forgive me if everything was completely wrong. I am advocating to keep this page. After rereading all the guidelines of WP:BIO I now believe after my new updates/edits/sources this page follows all guidelines and is justified as being considered "Notable". I do not believe the first edition published of this page should affect your decision and be held against the page, as it was an oversight to the guidelines. No business advert here or family obiturary whatsoever anymore. These errors are now gone. The obituary and "promotion" writings were because I sourced the entire material forgetting to ensure it wasn't bias or a hard company sell, a silly oversight on my part. The page now no longer shows any of these.[42] The page is now a complying w/ Wikipedia's bio guidelines (although breif) of a notable man & Restaurant founder of one of the most successful Pizza Franchises in the world Round Table Pizza. The page is easily consideredWP:BIO His biography of a simple businessman and his success. In the northern California region he is quite know; an icon/ legend and very well known throughout the Bay Area. WP:BIO Also I do disagree the page DOES show how he is a CA business man, how he got the company started, the idea behind it, and how it's grown. All done simply and unbias. William Larson has also been listed on countless websites as a "notable resident" of both Palo Alto, CA and Menlo Park, CA. Finally I MUST disagree, the company bio Wikipedia page Round Table Pizza does not already have content on William R. Larson that the company page already has. The Round Table Page mentions ONE line of how it started, only saying the date & location 1959. Sorry for the long responses and I hope this all makes sense. Thank you. :) TWL (talk) 5:40, 21 September 2020 (PST) — Note to closing admin: Timmylarson (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TWL (talk) 06:4:30am PST, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete sadly. I had at the outset thought that the subject was genuinely notable, but a fairly thorough WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing that would make the subject pass WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. It is of course possible that sources exist but are not easily accessible, but so far I see no evidence of notability. Java Hurricane 14:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ :William R. Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Sorry for doubling down on the "Keep", newbie here.) William R. Larson The man who started the 5th BIGGEST Pizza Chain in U.S history on less than $2,000 Round Table Pizza. WP:BIO THAT is notable, and definitely categorizes him as a success and the step her took to achieve this. Over the decades William R. Larson has had several magazine/ new articles written about him and his success though most written in the 50s/60s/70s. I will try to gather a much as I can from what hasn't been destroyed, but i believe I've given more than enough sources WP:BIO WP:BEFORE. The Round Table Wiki pages needs to has it's name listed, should be linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWL (talk • contribs)
- UPDATE 9:48AM (PST). :William R. Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) WP:NOTEBOMB No longer applies, I have now corrected all issues. Ive added a couple of articles WP:BEFORE. As stated this man is known throughout the Northern California Bay Area & beyond. His picture is hung in all 400+ restaurant locations with a brief biography on his life and how RTP got started. William R. Larson was a U.S. Navy Veteran and created one of the most popular and successful pizza franchises in California, with revenues in the millions. This is not some small unknown business and it's founder. His bio wiki page is breif and not selling any opinions and stated exactly how he came about making Round Table Pizza as a businessman. Also WP:BASIC has been met and exceeded with his life being covered for the Bio and secondary sources. Thank you :) TWL (talk) 7:40AM, 21 September 2020 (PST)

Striking your double vote: you're welcome to continue posting comments and updates, but not multiple "keep"s, thanks. Captain Calm (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timmylarson, are you related in any way to William Larson? In that case you have a conflict of interest: please review our conflict of interest policy. Also, the current sources in no way lead to passage of WP:BIO. Java Hurricane 04:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JavaHurricane, No I am not a blood relative to William R. Larson. Never actually met him before his death. I am a Bay Area local and believe in the creation of this page. There is no conflict or bias in my article as I have reviewed the our conflict of interest policy. I will continue to update the current sources to adhere to WP:BIO although saying it in no way leads to WP:BIO seems a bit unfair. I feel as thought the page is appropriate and William R. Larson constitutes a notable person Java TimmyLarson 01:05 AM, 22 September 2020 (PST)

Merge to Round Table Pizza. Non-bylined and relatively short obituaries in locally-oriented papers just don't establish independent notability for me. However, there's no need to lose the content as it would seem that RTP is notable, and he's directly connected to it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Round Table Pizza. Much of the article's content is present the Round Table Pizza article, and redirection would allow for the selective merging of additional pertinent, sourced content from this article to the Round Table Pizza article (WP:ATD-M). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of turnpikes in Virginia and West Virginia. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tazewell Courthouse and Fancy Gap Turnpike

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

Article has no sources added to provide significant proof of existence or general notability. AppalachianCentrist (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AppalachianCentrist (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced article which also consists primarily of a road map in prose. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Virginia State Route 61. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:22 on September 14, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect the few relevant details into List of turnpikes in Virginia and West Virginia, where it is already listed (but not linked from). --Lockley (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify There is no appropriate redirect/merge target (the turnpike covers ground on multiple current routes). As it stands, there is no evidence this is notable, so it doesn't belong in mainspace but I'd like the chance to look into this. It will take a bit of time to research, so I request this be Drafted as a courtesy. // Timothy :: talk 07:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of turnpikes in Virginia and West Virginia. This turnpike definitely existed but there is no evidence suggesting independent notability. The merger suggestion for State Route 61 is not a good target because this road only followed that one for a portion of its former length. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Adimefe

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm sorry to double down here, but I still cannot discern sufficiently demonstrated notability. From memory, there's a slight improvement over the previously deleted version, but it's still a gallery of promotion and passing mentions.

Source rundown:

[43] Adimefe is the author
[44] probably the best source here, but still only a side-topic in an opinion piece
[45] passing mention
[46] uncritical promo interview
[47] award nominee but apparently did not win? (source present twice)
[48] uncritical promo interview
[49] passing mention
[50] passing mention]

May be scratching the underside of notability, but it doesn't look as if we're there yet. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not at a level to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence for notability (t · c) buidhe 07:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Himalayan Times. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Pokhrel

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. The article creator likely has a conflict of interest. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I assume the aviation official referred to here is a different Rajan Pokhrel? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from what I can tell. I should have mentioned this in my nom statement. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Himalayan Times. Editor of a major RS for a country is a significant position but there isn't enough to qualify under WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calumet, Arizona

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

This was nominated sometime back as part of a failed group nom, but the argument made back then certainly applies here: everything says that this was named after the Calumet Mine because it was where the siding to the mine originated from. There's no suggestion of an actual settlement. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom, looks like this was an industrial site, I can't see anything to confirm this is a populated place. Deathlibrarian (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom, no evidence this was a community. I found "A Short History of the Calumet and Arizona Mining Company" which is 7-8 pages and it never mentions any place by this name except for Calumet, Michigan where the company originated. MB 05:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. This is not a legally recognized place that would pass WP:GEOLAND. @Stefka Bulgaria: - Why was this relisted? There appeared to be a pretty strong consensus to delete. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither notability nor populated place for this locale is established. Examined USGS historic topographic maps back to 1914. On the 1914 Douglas, Arizona, 1:62,500 qaudranagle, "Calumet," elevation 3953 feet, shows up as a railroad siding for the Calmuet and Arizona Smelter. About the same appears on sucessively younger maps until the 1955 Douglas 1:125,000 qaudrangle, where the siding and smelter disappear and only the name and an unknown symbol on the railroad track remains. For the more recent 1:24,000 qaudrangles, only the name remains. Calumet appears to be an abandoned railroad siding that lacks any significance and indication of having been a populated place at any time. Paul H. (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nexton. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miko Miko Nurse

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

The article lacks sources to support its notability Northern Escapee (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a search in Japanese, I found three sources:

I have been unable to find any RSs beyond this, and none about the game itself. Unless more RS coverage can be found, I would recommend redirecting to the publisher's article, and using the above sources to cover the opening theme briefly within the singer's article.--Alexandra^IDV 17:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of above sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Alexandra. No sources for the game itself. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ritson

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

Academic/marketing BLP, does not pass WP:NBIO. There is no shortage of references, but the events described do not establish notability. 1292simon (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails all possibilities of inclusion listed in WP:NACADEMIC and is therefore not a notable academic. Fails to show widespread impact in other fields, including as a columnist. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and will clean up the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Algonquin-class cutter

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

disambiguation page for ship classes not pointing to any ship class The Banner talk 09:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the lack of articles (yet) on these two subjects, this ambiguous phrase appears in multiple places on English Wikipedia. Articles already exist for three of the five Revenue cutters and five of the six Coast Guard cutters. In addition, all five Revenue cutters became Coast Guard cutters in January 1915. In the meantime, a category and a template have been created for the 1930s Coast Guard cutters using this ambiguous phrase. I still don't know what to rename the category and template to disambiguate them from the earlier Revenue cutters. I considered "Algonquin-class patrol gunboat", but USRC Gresham from the first class also became a patrol gunboat before the end of her fifty-year career. The length of the cutter might also be a disambiguating parameter, but USRC McCulloch was built longer than 205 feet to accommodate a third mast. – Maliepa (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article has now been started for the second ship class. – Maliepa (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are two "Algonquin-class" classes of cutters. The first in 1898, with two ships in the class and the latter in 1932 with six cutters in the class. The 1898 class includes two ships that are of slightly different lengths. The 1932 class has six ships all the same lengths. The two different classes have nothing in common and are two distinct classes; thus requiring a disambiguation page because both are referred to as "Algonquin-class" in most references and literature on the subject. Before considering deleting the disambiguation page, let Maliepa finish the work started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuprum17 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Cuprum17 (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see that an issue in that it's not currently linking to the actual ship classes but that's fixable. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a disambiguation page for the phrase "Algonquin-class cutter", not a list or set index of ship classes. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 14:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Palm

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

Non-notable game designer, dubious references to establish notability. Article created in 2015 by user now banned for sockpuppeting. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexio Kawara

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

Non-notable musician, highly promotional article, sources mostly blogs or music stream sites. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Babayev

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nasir Babayev

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sign of significant coverage. Article is heavy in POV (eg "a pleasant guest"), could be an WP:AUTOBIO or other COI, original ProD was removed without explanation or any other edits made. (Sources are there but none in english language, so I would note that none of them mention subject in their titles at least). Paul Carpenter (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. 11 of the sources only mention the subject with something along the lines of "...and Nasir Babayev did the hair" or "Nasir Babayev was there", and one source is an interview. – ².O.^Boxing 09:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Heart ^(talk) 13:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://nikabayramli.blogspot.com/2014/03/blog-post_1375.html?m=1 http://www.azerizv.az/news/a-7903.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufikmm (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROD nominator, no indication that this passes WP:GNG. W 42 15:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - FWIW: this could be immediately speedy deleted per G5. Article was created 29 September 2020 by Maharramli.46, a confirmed sock of Qurdofficial, well after the latter's indef block on 12 December 2019 (both are globally blocked). Эlcobbola _talk 19:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melvine Malard

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

French D1F is categorised as "not fully professional" by WP:FPL. She has not played a competitive international from the senior national team. She therefore fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG. (NPP action) -- Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This woman has played in the champions league final with Olympique Lyonnais, the greatest club ever of the European women's football (this is not an overstatement, but a pretty consensual fact). I don't think a strict aplication of WP:FOOTY is very appropriate in this case. --Coco (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly reaches WP:GNG as well, as per the sources in the article, such as this in-depth coverage. --Coco (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playing a few seconds of the Champions League Final may allow this to scrape through NFOOTY (potentially) but this still fails GNG comprehensively Spiderone 10:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jogurney below Spiderone 18:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per User:GiantSnowman. Heart ^(talk) 13:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about semi-pro footballer which appears to satisfy WP:GNG. L'Équipe (France's leading sports newspaper) has in-depth coverage (e.g., [51]), and Imaz Press Réunion (news service based in Réunion) has in-depth coverage (e.g., [52]). It's also worth noting that she has been called up to the senior France international football team after leading the under-19 side to the European championship in 2019. Jogurney (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. I have seen articles dedicated to young 12 year old Indian players before for doing well in local Indian leagues. Does it mean they pass WP:GNG? Two articles doesn't make one notable or pass GNG in my opinion. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she played final in women UCL for Lyon and it is OK, its better to be with maintenance templates than this AFC. (F5pillar---/ ^{'Messager🖋📩}) 10:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Malard was more than just called up for France - she played in the matches against North Macedonia and Serbia in the Euro 2021 qualifying thereby passing WP:NFOOTY. The L'Equipe article is just icing on the cake. Dougal18 (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY, and if cleared up could probably pass GNG as well. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes both NFOOTY and GNG though I hope there will be more reliable sources listed as her career progress continues.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Lena Stolze

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

Both German Frauen Bundesliga and the Dutch Eredivisie are categorised as "not fully professional" by WP:FPL. She has not played a competitive international from the senior national team. So, she fails WP:NFOOTY. No sign that she passes WP:GNG. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes she fails NFooty, but from what I can see on a google search it might be possible she does pass GNG, there is certainly fair coverage once you get past the profiles. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per more than impressive coverage. Also, I believe we should consider adding the Frauen Bundesliga and Eredivisie Vrouwen to the leagues whose players are held notable. We cannot change the rules after the nomination yet support could be tested during this discussion before being discussed in the correct forum. gidonb (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Women's division players should be notable when their male equivalent is notable. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Should be notable" but are they? We're descriptive, not prescriptive. In some countries women may play more of another team sport, in others the leagues just will not get much pay and coverage regardless. The Daily Show has addressed this inequality at the US national team level.[53][54] Right now only for the US and UK women's leagues the players are held notable. I would initially submit four more: France, Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden. If successful, we'd triple and see where to take it next. As more people join in a demand to "keep" this article based on facts, we may have something to show. gidonb (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about semi-pro footballer who appears to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Lübecker Nachrichten (a regional newspaper for Schleswig-Holstein) has in-depth coverage (e.g., [55]). I think there is enough other coverage (none of which is as in-depth) such as [56] to conclude WP:GNG is met. Perhaps we risk WP:TOOSOON, but I think there is just enough to flesh this out. Jogurney (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Again, a little coverage doesn't make the player pass GNG. If we want to argue that these leagues are where the women are automatically notable then the case needs to be made at WP:FPL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looking at the sources brought up by Jogurney, I am convinced that this person passes WP:GNG, even though they fail NFOOTY. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played two senior career match on a loan spell at FC Twente, passes GNG. (F5pillar---/ ^{'Messager🖋📩}) 10:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has also played in the Champions League as well as Twente. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. WP:FPL still a heavily biased essay "managed" by a handful of self-appointed editors. Hmlarson (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FPL is but a list of verifiable information, so I do not know how it can be biased or how the number of editors managing it is relevant to its legitimacy. It has no further purpose than to help quickly check whether someone meets NFOOTY, the notability guideline of relevance here. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NFOOTY says nothing about "fully professional". She meets requirements of WP:GNG regardless.Tsistunagiska (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fails NFOOTY but meets GNG as per sources highlighted by others; significant coverage Spiderone 13:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Bagel Award

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

Fails WP:GNG: the only sources are the non-notable originators of the award (SideSpin Productions), a PR site they use (prweb.com), and several WP:REFLOOPS. --Somnifuguist (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this is a genuine award. Looks more like some homemade award by Sidespin Productions, whoever they are. We can all made up awards but we need more than that here. Nigej (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per above and the last deletion. Non-notable award. Praxidicae (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Feiden

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

Non-notable theater owner fails WP:GNG. Proximity to fame does not confer fame, just as proximity to notability does not confer notability. The page also has a strong WP:PROMO feel. KidAd talk 05:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the notable gallery owner. Well sourced. Does not read like promo to me. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets GNG just on the NYTimes articles I looked at, and there are plenty of other sources. Needs a little cleanup, sure. --Krelnik (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she lost the Hirschfeld case and a lot of information is here. --k72ndst (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
K72ndst, the NYT says they corrected earlier reports to say the case was dropped, and the contract renogotiated. ^[1] Anyway, she's a fascinating character with great stories to tell. This could easily become a really good article. Keep

References

^ https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/17/arts/al-hirschfeld-sues-gallery-asserting-it-cheated-him.html

Vexations (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Hardin Harrison

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

Local Texas county judge. Does not meet NPOL. Sources are local reporting in the Texarkana area. There is one Washington Times article, but it is a short reprint of a local article. MB 04:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MB 04:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MB 04:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete heads of counties are not default notable and we do not have truly broad coverage of the type needed to show such a person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here comes close to WP:USCJN. BD2412 T 03:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland). (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Carson Elementary School (Maryland)

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

elementary schools are not ordinarily notable , and the naming dispute isn;'t enough to show otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An elementary school is not automatically notable unless it is notable for something other than being an elementary school. KidAd talk 05:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect Searching finds routine coverage such as change of principal. Blue Ribbon School in 2012 of some help but not enough. Gab4gab (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable Heart ^(talk) 13:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland) which does seem to have lists of schools in it, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, one I happen to agree with, and WP:CHEAP. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --evrik ^(talk) 14:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Standard NN elementary school. Redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools (Maryland)#Elementary Schools, where it is mention, though. The mention also has a link to the school's website, which will probably be more helpful for any readers than information we would provide. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nika2020 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable elementary school. I am sure there are or have been multiple schools with this name in the US so I do not see a redirect being justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several schools named after her. I just changed the name of the article and posted the original to Rachel Carson. --evrik ^(talk) 19:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 13:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StreamElements

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

Mentions only, in articles about other things that use some of its tools DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Masey McLain

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

The actress appeared in a single film only, apparently. Fails WP:NACTOR. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not just a single film. IMDB reports she got a best supporting nomination for Because of Grácia (2017) and she has a starring television role in The Baxters (2019). (IMDB's not reliable, but I'm sure these could be verified.) pburka (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb is not a reliable source and so if that is the only evidence we have for more roles we have no evidence at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can we assume from your comment, therefore, that you attempted and failed to find such sources? pburka (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~. I'm not convinced that a full WP:BEFORE has been performed. Have just started adding sigcov from reliable secondary sources and expanding it. JGHowes ^talk 00:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caneer, Missouri

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

Apparently an isolated school, not a community. I've been unable to find any evidence that there was a community of the sort that would pass WP:GEOLAND at the site, although there's a lot of search engine noise due to the apparent prominence of the Caneer family in nearby Senath, Missouri during the relevant time frame. Also, I'm having to filter out OCR scanner errors where "cancer" was the intended meaning. If evidence that this was a real community can be found (not WP:GNIS and "populated place"), I'm willing to withdraw this. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I found no results on newspaper.com for supposed place, just the two individuals mentioned in the source above. Reywas92^Talk 07:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara Networks

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

no evidence of notability . Notices only, except fpr tthe Forbes item which is by an outside contributor, who just happens to be the vice president of the firm/. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish inclusion in Wikipedia is warranted. The sourcing in the article does not establish notability. As of this version, the article has 5 sources:
1. An eWeek article which mentions the company but provides no depth of coverage
2. Purports to be a product review but the author literally cut and pasted this press release
3. The Forbes article is from a VP of the firm, so it not independent
4. The Helpnetsecurity article is from the same VP as the Forbes article, again not independent
5. This is a press release from the company

My own search just turns up more press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good analysis by Whqp above, there doesn't appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baumberg, California

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

A railroad station. No evidence of a community and nothing to indicate notability. Glendoremus (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bulk-created GNIS-only location that isn't an actual place under WP:NGEO. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asco, California

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

A train station on the Southern Pacific RR for loading agricultural products. Not a community. No evidence of notability. Glendoremus (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bulk-created GNIS-only location that isn't an actual place under WP:NGEO. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albrae, California

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

A railroad station on Southern Pacific RR, serving property owned by the Albrae Gun Club. No evidence of a community by this name. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bulk-created GNIS-only location that isn't an actual place under WP:NGEO. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Lewallen

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

Notability concerns. Doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON. Only non-trivial coverage is on University of Wisconsin football fan blogs, such as [57]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never made the cut for a professional team. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Royal broil 00:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as never played professionally. Balle010 (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ it's pretty rare for an NCAA offensive linemen to generate enough press to pass WP:GNG, but it does happen. This does not seem to be the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is some coverage out there. See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm some of those look promising. I'll re-evaluate, until then consider me Neutral. Nice research.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, - Never played professional. Alex-h (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: needs evaluation of sources that Ejgreen77 found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – while Ejgreen77's sources are good, I don't believe the subject meets WP:COLLATH. He has not won a national award (only personal award listed on the article is "Offensive Scout Team Player of the Year" at UW. He's not a hall-of-famer, nor has he won multiple NCAA D1 individual nat'l championships, nor is he a head coach. Point 3 is the only one that gives me pause, but given that all seven sources Ejgreen77 linked are either from Madison (where UW is located) or Oshkosh (only about 80 miles away), I would say that this is not "national media attention". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been enthusiastic enough to enter any of the additional details into the article, and neither has anyone else. Perhaps we might go with try another wiki (and I suppose a dash of ignore all rules just in case). I think removing the article atthis time will be better for Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Family Rosary Crusade. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Family Theater Productions

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet the notability criteria. More suitable to include content as part of the article Family Rosary Crusade. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Family Rosary Crusade where this topic is covered in sufficient detail and context. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Family Rosary Crusade and delete with same arguments as both AllyD and nom. The article itself is not notable and there is no need to leave a redirect for it, IMO. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G12, copyvio. As I wrote in the log entry, "the information is so short and factual that one might reasonably expect some overlap even for a freshly-written summary of the same information, but here the similarities go well past that level of overlap into copyvio territory." —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel V. Jones

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

The tone of the article makes it read like a promotional piece, CV, or resume instead of a dispassionate biography. Previous users removed unsubstantiated content, as well as text described as puffery. The article does not contain much besides his education, which is not notable. HP20011 (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Speedy Delete. ~~Page needs some improvement, but he passes WP:NACADEMIC~~ Page is a complete copyright violation. KidAd talk 03:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon starting the cleanup process, I've found that this article is a direct copy-and-paste job from UIC.edu. KidAd talk 03:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering, Technology and Applied Science Research

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

Indexing nowhere selective. Fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beyond obscure. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have we generally decided that the Emerging Sources Citation Index is not sufficiently selective to count? XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ESCI is proto-notability. Useful to librarians to keep an eye on a journal which may become of interest down the road. Hence the name 'Emerging source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:GNG, and I for one don't think the Emerging Sources Citation Index is adequately selective for listing to count as evidence that "the journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area", as asked for by WP:NJOURNALS #1. The very name "emerging", like the phrase "up and coming", to me is a flag that it has not yet arrived. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/17/arts/al-hirschfeld-sues-gallery-asserting-it-cheated-him.html

[1]