Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 25 July 27 July >

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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah Junction, California

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

It's clear from every source I've found that this was never more than a road junction. The notability issue is that it is name-dropped a lot: by weird place names people, by roadside oddities people (there was a tree heavily decorated with shoes nearby which was removed a few years back), by rockhounds (a distinctive smoky amethyst is collected nearby), by mining stats people (there was a pumice mine to the south: you can still see the hole, which is listed separately on GNIS), and by the composer John Adams, who supposedly has a house in the general vicinity and who named both a piano piece and his autobiography after the place. All that was ever at the spot itself, as best I can determine, was the intersection and a store, both of which have been heavily modified over the years. I'm not terribly convinced by the origin story for the name, which sounds frankly like fakelore, especially since neither Fairchild's county history nor Gudde's gazetteers appear to mention the place. So, is the place notable because it's mentioned a lot? Right now, an accurate article would say "Hallelujah Junction is a highway intersection where there is a gas station and store," and then go on to list some of these other things. I'm not fully convinced this is enough, especially since the one reference which would unquestionably remain is the John Adams material, which is at best two sentences in his article. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had some time to take a closer look at this subject today, and I wonder if another angle to this might be
    WP:GEOLAND, which provides near-inherent notability to Populated, legally recognized places. This entry in the Geographic Names Information System seems to categorize this as a "populated place", and there are some news articles that describe it as some kind of landmark or community, e.g. [3][4]. I'm not sure if this is the kind of place that enjoys automatic notability per GEOLAND. Mz7 (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment Nothing is inherently notable. Per
WP:NGEO, "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable." A presumption of notability can be (and often is) challenged. The General Notability Guidelines calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I don't believe this subject meets this standard. Glendoremus (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rachel Bloom. This discussion seems to have produced a rough consensus against both keeping and outright deletion with opinions on whether to merge or simply redirect being divided. In such cases my customary practice is to go with the least drastic option. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Shit (You've Got to Vote)

Holy Shit (You've Got to Vote) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not pass our notability standards. Not a notable song per

WP:NSONG and the video is not notable Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was able to find some pretty high level reliable source coverage pretty easily, both in and outside of the music industry. The
    WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  1. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rachel-bloom-elizabeth-banks-sing-support-hillary-profanity-filled-funny-die-video-944341
  2. https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7565686/rachel-bloom-moby-funny-or-die-voting-video-hillary-clinton
  3. https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/11/celebrity-endorsements-donald-trump-hillary-clinton
  4. https://time.com/4558336/rachel-bloom-elizabeth-banks-and-moby-sing-youve-got-to-vote/ Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:IAR is a good option. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
None of that is relevant. NETTRUMP (an essay) says Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. If the latest outrage has no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed not to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. To summarize, the subject you’ve nominated is not something Trump did, and it is covered by reliable sources. It’s the opposite of NETTRUMP. Your defense of the nom is even worse than the nom itself. It easily meets the
WP:GNG with this level of sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I am sorry that you are upset with the nomination. I cited an essay about Trump and it was the only semi-humorous essay I could find which is tangentially relatable - we often use essays in AfDs
WP:IAR. So we disagree. I will retreat from the AfD unless I am pinged. Cheers! Lightburst (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I’m not upset. Just pointing out all the flaws in the nomination and subsequent doubling down on its defense. You also haven’t given any valid reason to invoke IAR. The irony here is that you seem to be the only one treading on any
WP:IDONTLIKEIT violations. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • To be clear, you’re citing
    WP:NOTNEWSPAPER for...a song...? That received dedicated reliable source coverage in and outside of the music industry? In very mainstream sources? That doesn’t make any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nomination That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to
    WP:NOTEWORTHY? Clearly. BD2412 T 00:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to Rachel Bloom. I grabbed some news sources with the intent of expanding this, but got stuck beyond the basic description present in the article now. Although there are several sources, they are all immediately focused on the 2016 election. I would expect for clear notability, there would be sustained coverage of it since. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rachel Bloom since that seems like the fair compromise to outright deletion. Since this doesn't seem notable enough on it's own but someone might still search for it. So, a redirect seems reasonable. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are clearly a number of sources covering this, but there has been insufficient discussion to determine whether they are substantive enough to warrant a standalone article, or whether a merge/redirect would be more appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Selective merge to
    WP:IAR, for what exactly, to reinforce own bias? - hako9 (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to Rachel Bloom. The Vanity Fair piece gives the song a paragraph as one example of celebrity endorsements of Clinton, the rest are short 'check out this trending video on Youtube!' articles. Made big enough splash to mention in her biography but not big enough for a standalone article. --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:NSONG, I believe there's no way the article can be expanded. It's best to discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 00:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to Rachel Bloom since the subject lacks the attributes for a stand-alone article. -The Gnome (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bithumb

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

The only proper articles written about this Bitcoin exchange were written when it was robbed. Wikipedia is not a news site, and a robbery does not warrant notability. Notability therefore not established. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am ambivalent. Sometimes a news event is notable. So I will think on this. Lightburst (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst:, are you aware of how many hacks have happened over the years? Wikipedia never covers the actual hack in detail (details are almost never released anyway!), so there is not enough content for an article. If you think the subject of exchange hacks is notable, we should just have our own list that would be analogous to that one. One could also cover security issues in general to include stuff like this one. Note that I was employed at Electrum at the time of that issue. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Superastig: those are all PR publication websites that are pay-to-publish and will publish absolutely anything. They are not reliable sources, they are not reputable sources, they cannot be cited! Notability has NOT been demonstrated, I maintain my position that the article must be nuked. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBC Online noted about Bithumb in 2017, "It is South Korea's biggest cryptocurrency exchange, based on recent trading volumes, and one of the five largest in the world."

    Reuters noted in 2018, "Bithumb has been at the center of the speculative frenzy. With about 70 percent of market share in South Korea, it has been the dominant place that ordinary South Koreans go to buy and sell the virtual currency."

    The Korea Times noted in 2020, "Bithumb's planned initial public offering (IPO) could face a setback as it has yet to announce details as to how it plans to address some outstanding issues that could prevent it from achieving a successful IPO filing here, mostly related to recent cryptocurrency taxation issues. ... Stock market experts, however, warned that Bithumb's IPO will take a long time and the company may fail to fulfill the strict requirements to become a listed firm."

    A 2020 Springer Nature article that discusses 18 usability issues in Bithumb noted in 2020, "Bithumb is an exchange started in 2014. It is a large cryptocurrency exchange that has 4.5 million members with a global trading volume of about 1 trillion won per day."

    Cunard (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment By now, Cunard well knows the criteria for establishing notability and ref-bombing an AfD with references that fail the criteria in
    HighKing++ 15:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow substantive discussion of the sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per GNG. The BBC call the operation the fifth largest in the world, a clear claim of notability, the BBC are renowned for careful journalism. The company are involved in some rather interesting events, including the robbery of their exchange, [1][2], by North Korea!? It seems like they were also involved in a scandal which almost led to bitcoin being banned in South Korea[3]. obviously once the BBC have noticed there are dozens of other stories. The Korean times is reliable, Reuters is reliable and the BBC is reliable. PainProf (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PainProf: the BBC has no way to verify this information, market caps are huge and cannot be seen as evidence of notability. Whatever counts as interesting to you does not warrant notability. We have no guideline claiming that we have a bitcoin exchange becomes notable because it was the fifth largest in 2017. Actually, I can't even find the claim ("fifth largest") in the BBC articles you linked. Can you show me? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It is South Korea's biggest cryptocurrency exchange, based on recent trading volumes, and one of the five largest in the world." Here It says the BBC have based that off trading volumes which suggests a journalist verified the claim. PainProf (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PainProf: How would a journalist verify the authenticity of trades performed inside an exchange? It took months before people found out about the fake trades on MtGox. There had been no time for research like that for a news story like this. BBC is mainstream media, it wouldn't be able to verify anything. Note how other non-industry media like the London Review of Books helped Craig Steven Wright claim he is Satoshi. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If an outlet such as the BBC makes a claim like that you would have to find a more reliable source saying it is not true. Regardless, it is a highly reliable source for notability. BTW in my opinion if there are articles such as this it is better if you include them in the nomination and describe why they are not reliable sources as they are not particularly hard to find, you should list them and describe why each is unreliable. The Reuters article in particular refers to a second scandal... PainProf (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked Wikipedia doesn't peddle in scandals. If your talking about the Reuters article referenced at the bottom of the AfD, which I assume you are, it isn't even about Bithumb and they are only mentioned briefly in relation to the police raiding them over "alleged" tax evasion. Last time I checked Wikipedia is pretty solid on not peddling in things that were alleged to happen. Especially since according to this follow up article by CoinDesk "No charge of tax evasion was found" and Bithumb paid the taxes without any objection. So, essentially nothing ended up happening outside of the initial scandal. That it was mentioned in Reuters isn't really relevant to that. I think trying to claim that kind of thing proves notability "because Reuters" is another good example of the
WP:NOTNEWS is talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
We dont second guess RS and question how BBC would have determined something based on an editor's opinion (aka
WP:OR. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nishan Sumanadeera

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

This does not appear to be a notable entrepreneur or businessman. The article was created by a PR firm, and many of the sources in the article's citations are either dead or nonexistent. Aside from routine interviews (e.g. [5]) and a mention in this "venture capital journal", it does not appear that either this person or the consultancy firm he founded have been significantly covered in reliable sources. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MimbleWimble

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

No evidence of notability. No coverage that I could find in RSes on a

WP:BEFORE - all coverage is primary, unreliable or crypto sites. No suitable redirect targets. Contested PROD, though the evidence proffered was this IBTimes story - but IBTimes is listed on WP:RSP as generally unreliable, so not a source of notability. David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Trouble (Goosebumps episode)

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

Covered in

AldezD (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
AldezD (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Jodhpur

Line of succession to the former throne of Jodhpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This kingdom has been defunct since 1949. This completely unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Waldeck and Pyrmont

Line of succession to the former throne of Waldeck and Pyrmont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This (semi-independent) principality has been defunct since 1918. This roughly unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Line of succession is also available in parent article Principality of Waldeck and Pyrmont. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Idar

Line of succession to the former throne of Idar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This kingdom has been defunct since 1949. This completely unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (

WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Po Sam Yuk Secondary School

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

There doesn't seem to anything notable about this school. All of the references in the article except for one are primary and nothing that would establish the schools notability comes up in a search about it. Plus, the creator and main editor of the article clearly has a COI. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:GNG and to vote keep based on them. Especially when you have been told repeatedly to stop doing it. Either post sources that actually work for notability or don't post at all, but what your doing is getting pretty tiring and you should stop doing it. Otherwise, I'm going to report you to the admin noticeboard. If you want articles to be kept, get them kept the correct way. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think these sources are primary sources but am open to striking sources from the list if it is demonstrated that any of them are primary sources. If you think that this AfD contribution is disruptive, I recommend that you post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to receive input from the community about whether they agree.

Cunard (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source comes from ktsps.edu.hk/ which is either their website which would be primary or one closely associated with them and is therefore
WP:OR, and the third isn't even about them and they are only mentioned briefly in passing. Same goes for the forth one, and like Whereas, the fifth is from their own newsletter so 100% it's primary. Also, the topics covered in the sources are extremely trivial anyway. All schools have tuition hikes and there's nothing notable about it. Which is why there's no non-primary sources covering it. You really should have checked the sources yourself. As I've said before, it's not on other AfD participants to vet your sources. I'm not going to report you if your willing to correct yourself and stop doing it, but it's been a repeated thing. It's not difficult to review sources before you post them to make sure they are usable. So do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I reviewed the sources before posting them and stand by my posting of them. The first source is a copy of a Ming Pao article. The second source is from an academic paper. Wikipedia:No original research says Wikipedia editors may not perform original research. Wikipedia:No original research does not say that Wikipedia editors cannot use reliable sources that perform the original research. The third and fourth sources each provide a paragraph of coverage that explains why the school increased tuition by such a large amount. These two sources help with Wikipedia:Verifiability more than they help with Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The fifth source is independent coverage in Apple Daily.

Cunard (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you would. I didn't expect you to follow through on doing the proper thing. Anyway, original research in Wikipedia isn't just confined to editors. It also covers things like academic research papers and autobiographies. That's why the whole secondary source things exists in the first place and also why
WP:PRIMARY, which is in Wikipedia:No original research, says "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." The same goes for anything else written for academic purposes. Since they are original research and not a secondary synthesis of the data. Which is what the notability guidelines requires. Importantly, while primary sources are fine for adding basic information to articles, they are don't work for establishing notability. Just like it's OK to cite a tweet with basic information in an article, but it's not OK to use one as a source in an AfD. What can be in an article and what establish notability are two different standards. Also, if the last two sources just help with verifiability then they should be left out. Since that isn't what we are trying to establish here. Two trivial non-reliable sources verifying each other are still two trivial non-reliable sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
BTW, for exactly what I was talking about see
WP:FORUM. "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion." --Adamant1 (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The "your results" and "your work" referenced in
WP:FORUM mentions "other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications". "Other venues" include Shuk Wah Poon's Lingnan University-published book chapter. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Mine and other peoples that why it says "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc." And the talks about someone posting their own research. Original ideas are still original research if they are mine or not. I can't post my friends thoughts on an idea anymore then I can my own. Or visa versa by having them post my original ideas just because they aren't me. That's why you need it to be published in secondary reliable sources in the first place. Otherwise, there would be zero reason reason for it and people could generate their notability by hiring PR firms to write about them and crap. A PR piece isn't "the person", but it's still not reliable because it's original research. Lingnan University-published book chapter isn't "Other venues" because it's the college he was attending and it was published through them as part of him writing it. Generally, "other venues" do not include the place you attend who has a vested interested in and publishes your work. Like if if I attend Standford, while a PhD thesis while going there, and they publish it, that's not "other venues" and it is exactly what the article is doing. Otherwise, it would have to be in a third party peer reviewed journal or something.
Also,
WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." And also "dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." So, you'd have to prove that 1. Lingnan University is a well-regarded press and that what they publish is vetted first 2. Show that the specific book or article has had significant scholarly influence. Neither of which you can do and still wouldn't get around the original research thing anyway even if you could. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think more third party analisation of Cunard's sources is required before this discussion should be closed either way. Cheers! -- puddleglum2.0 20:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- puddleglum2.0 20:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's Portsmouth Rally (July 2020)

Donald Trump's Portsmouth Rally (July 2020) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After reading

WP:EVENTCRITERIA, I don't think individual rallies or campaign events (by any candidate) merit their own article. The information can be included in Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign instead. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mainstream Top 40 top 10 singles in 2017

List of Mainstream Top 40 top 10 singles in 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

They don't meet

WP:GNG. Previous AfD was no consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billboard Mainstream Top 40 top 10 singles
) and had limited participation.

Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged each of the nominated articles and added the 2018-2020 lists to the nomination as well. To bundle, the instructions can be found at
    WP:MULTIAFD. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete do not pass the notability guidelines for lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. As per previous AfD's top ten singles on any particular chart are not notable unlike #1's aer. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and commentary above. -The Gnome (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom Spiderone 18:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is wide agreement that this is an appropriate topic for the encyclopedia regardless of the present state of the article. The suggestion of renaming the page can be followed up on the article talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mental disorders in film

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

Notability is in no way established through either a summary nor reliable sources. This article has numerous issues with a lack of reliable sources, formatting issues throughout, many incorrect links, etc. It's an overall mess. Factfanatic1 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 19:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Retitling the article to "
Mental disorders in film", available for a new article discussing aspects of such films that are not discussed in this list (some were discussed originally in 2008 and much later). Nihil novi (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With an article this poor, the

WP:TNT argument is quite persuasive. There is consensus here that if this article is to exist, it needs to be rewritten entirely. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Ozon.ru

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

Article fails

WP:PEACOCK. A complete reqrite would be required to bring the article in line with Wikipedia standards. Melmann 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Melmann 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: You beat me to it (though I was procrastinating quite a lot)! What notable content there is should be moved to
     Darth Flappy «Talk» 18:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tried to clean up, however my edits were reversed. this article needs cleaned of all PR, POV etc --Devokewater @ 10:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draft, this article needs rewritten with reliable sources. --Devokewater @10:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Goulburn Valley Football Association. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goulburn Valley Second Eighteens Football Association

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

Lacks significant coverage about the Football Association itself needed to meet

WP:GNG DannyS712 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
    talk) 00:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Parsons

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

NN actor/comedian, fails the GNG and NACTOR going away. His acting credits are extra parts along the lines of "Punk," "Trucker #2," "TV Store Customer," "Liquor Store Clerk" and "Security Guard." No significant coverage in reliable sources. Notability tagged for over a decade. Ravenswing 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edguy#Discography. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Minded

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

Non-notable demo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first demo album by Edguy. I have seen that this article had an AfD back in 2010 and the result was delete because demos are not notable for WP and no reliable sources are available. The article was then re-created in 2012, it also has a notability tag since that year. Still no reliable sources, only the same old, standard unreliable sites like databases, download sites, lyrics sites, blogs, Youtube videos and forums. If there is a review, they are featured on unreliable sites like Metal Archives, Metal Music Archives and Rate Your Music. No reliable sources whatsoever. I have also nominated their second demo,

Children of Steel which suffers from the same problems. Like I said at that demo's AfD, Edguy is a notable band but not everything they release is notable (that goes to any band btw). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Edguy#Discography, looks more like a database entry than an actual encyclopedic article, not to mention that the only source is unreliable. Btw, both demos could have been jointly nominated, since the reasoning is the same and the topics are closely connected. Victor Lopes Fala!•C 21:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi S. Kumar

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

Only seems in any way notable for a big hairstyle, this gentleman is not notable. References are TV style listings, and an interview. This is pure promotional cruft, and UPE Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThAFF

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

Non-notable job hunting project by a government. scope_creepTalk 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since nothing is out there on our subject
    kamikaze account never helps. -The Gnome (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vidhya Vinod

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

Non notable business exec, with references that in one case refuse to open. One is a directory listing, one an interview.

A piece of poorly crafted UPE Fiddle Faddle 17:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edguy#Discography. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Steel (album)

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

Non-notable demo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A demo album by Edguy. I think it is not notable. I couldn't find anything besides download sites, blogs, lyrics sites, Youtube videos and databases. No evidence of notability. The article is sourced to the unreliable Metal Archives only. That is never a good sign either. The page also has a notability and an improve references tag since 2013. Non-notable release. Edguy is a notable band but not everything they release is notable. (That goes to any band by the way, not just Edguy.) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted. I did not find any notable source.Ahmetlii (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like I suggested for
    Evil Minded, redirect to Edguy#Discography since it looks more like a database entry than an actual encyclopedic article, not to mention that the only source is unreliable. And like I also said in the other nomination page, both demos could have been jointly nominated, since the reasoning is the same and the topics are closely connected. Victor Lopes Fala!•C 21:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Utsavam

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

A set of TV listings do not make a TV show notable, They make it present. The references are all TV mag listings. They say who is on, when it is on, but nothing in them shows any notability/

This is also a piece of UPE Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk (t 愛 c) 08:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Twentyfour News

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

The references do not bear out any notability, Fails

WP:CORP
, and is very poor UPE (can there be good UPE?).

Reference analysis shows one from the channel itself, one 404 error, and otherwise interviews with the principals Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
    talk) 00:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Logs: 2018-01 ✗
R2
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mithilaj Abdul

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

The references are 404 errors in two cases, passing mentions in others. One is an interview in reported speech. I have not attempted the non English Language reference

UPE and fails all notability criteria Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable person involved in the creation of television programs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop John

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

I have checked all the references except the non English language one. I see passing mentions or, worse, zero mentions.

I cannot see how the gentleman who is doubtless good at his trade, is different from any other plying his trade. I think he fails on any of our notability criteria

I cannot disregard the UPE here Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dumas (economist)

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

primary sources, such as directory entries and his profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations and his own company's self-published press releases about itself, which are not support for notability at all. Since his career stretches back to the 1960s, any prospect of salvaging this with better references would almost certainly require digging into archived British media coverage I don't personally have access to, so I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find the correct kind of referencing to establish his notability -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I have added more sources that I believe to not be primary ones. Please could you let me know if they improve the validity of the page? If not, please could you explain further how I can ensure that this page is not deleted as this is an individual who is very well known in their field and the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahtsl (talk • contribs) 09:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have checked many of the references and find them to be unhelpful in an assertion and verification of the gentleman's notability. Hannahtsl asks for guidance. I have given that on the article's talk page. The gentleman has had a decent career. So did I. He is well known in his field. So was I. He has written a book. So have I. But no-one would consider me worthy of an article here because there is nothing showing notability. Nor does he have that. Prove me wrong, ping me, and I will change my mind. Not about me, but about him. I know I'm not notable. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that
    WP:UPE to which we are awaiting a response, and a COI banner on the article. I hope very much that this turns into a formal declaration of paid editing or a credible denial Fiddle Faddle 22:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
A declaration has been made in discussions on the editor's talk page and directly in their user page, and this now meets our needs Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost all sources cited or
    there's a fee involved or not. -The Gnome (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial secure mobile companies

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

Unnecessary list, most of the items on the list are red links as of now - showing that the list is not notable. The title is also vague with no explanation of what a 'commercial secure' mobile company is. I presume.a 'commercial secure' mobile company is one which is secure against hacking? But has no definition.   Kadzi   (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. qedk (t 愛 c) 08:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Rathee Taneja

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

Subject clearly fails

WP:GNG, not notable. Most of the refs are interviews (some clearly PR thing), failing the need for the sources to be independent. Zoodino (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I thought about nominating as well but I wasn't too sure.
    TALK) 17:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, All references are in favor of the article. When the article was created, the administrator himself removed the Speedy deletion notice from the article - stating that the references were in favor. Edit History Mr. Wiki Indian (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr. Wiki Indian:, Can you elaborate what do you mean by "All references are in favor of the article", because just having some links as references is not sufficient, the sources need to reliable and independent and should have significant coverage of the subject. (in this case, some of the reference source may be reliable but most of them are interviews and PR articles which can't be considered independent) Zoodino (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this account is a sock of LowSlo, I've reported and awaiting admin intervention here
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Orb Collector

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

No references/sources, web search shows this is a flash game on a maths website, with absolutely no media sources or mention in any article ever.   Kadzi   (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MICRO (organization)

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

This page possibly doesn't meet WP:ORG, furthermore, it was moved from AFC pipeline to mainspace suddenly by a fishy account. High chance of paid editing. Opinions for discussion are invited. ChayanSen (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — ChayanSen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Black

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

NN record producer, fails the GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. While I agree that “Midnight Black” is a tough search parameter, no reliable sources satisfying the GNG beyond namedrops were found. Notability tagged for over a decade. Created by a SPA with no other Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 15:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Spartaz Humbug! 06:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

List of martini variations

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

Completely unreferenced article (except for two incidental citations of specific martini variants), fails

WP:ORIGINAL. Fundamentally, the article is trying to do an impossible thing, to create a comprehensive taxonomy of drinks that may or may not be variations of a martini, either in name or nature; at best it is always going to be only a partial list, and almost inevitably include things that shouldn't be there. The article has been around for many years and gone through different incarnations, each with their problems, and I think it's finally time to put it out of its misery. Any genuinely worthwhile content can be merged into the main martini article. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge Per nom, anything worth keeping can go at martini, a short article that can certainly incorporate the sources above! Reywas92Talk 20:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Writing a well-referenced article is definitely possible per Andrew's sources, and the current content is not so hopelessly bad that it needs
    WP:TNT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sources are recipe collections, not necessarily substantive content. Wikipedia is
    not a cookbook cataloguing 200 ways to mix drinks, nor is anything keeping these sources from being used in the main article. Reywas92Talk 23:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect into Martini_(cocktail)#Variations, where there's already a section, with much of the same verbatim text, much better sourced than this. Nom is correct, some of the previous versions were much more convincing in content and format, and arguably worth rescue. Unfortunately none of that was ever sourced. The existing taxonomy is wrongheaded unsourced OR and not worth merging. --Lockley (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per
    WP:V, "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." This AfD has been going on for a week now, and no one has seen fit to do the simple sourcing that has been claimed is easily done.) Ravenswing 22:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Media Group

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

Fails

WP:PROMOTION of the company. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion: References have been added and improved. Empire AS Talk! 06:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment:, www.pakpedia.pk, www.advertiseinpakistan.com are unreliable sources. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: These two above unreliable sources will be taken out and replaced by tomorrow. The article needs a cleanup which I'll try to do. Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Indus Media Group is a major satellite TV channel provider in Pakistan and runs 3 different TV channels. So it's a notable news media company. Problems with the article can be fixed. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unrelated content and references removed today. Replaced with 3 newspaper references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article looks notable to me per [6] and [7]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Remove the promotional material and make it more compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. -Hatchens (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Slovak origin

List of English words of Slovak origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN list, fails LISTN and assuredly the GNG. This threadbare "list" (of all of three words) purports to list "English words" of Slovak origin. Of the three, one is the conglomerate name of a sub-subsidiary guitar maker, one is of a Slovakian musical instrument listed in a dictionary of musical instruments, and the third is cited to a Slovakian source. In all three cases I would strongly dispute they are seen as "English" words at all, and certainly there are no sources claiming that they are. Notability tagged for over ten years.

Deprodded with the unhelpful explanation of “How does WP:NLIST feel about List of English words of Slovak origin?” I’m not sure what the guideline itself would think about it, were it sentient, but perhaps live editors will have their own notions. Ravenswing 13:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 13:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For what it's worth, the Oxford English Dictionary Online attributes the word "dobro" to Czech origin (specifically, "< the name of its Czech-U.S. inventors, the Do(pěra Bro(thers; the coincidence with Czech dobro (the) good, a good thing, may also help to explain the choice of this form") and doesn't list "fujara" or "čačky" as English words at all. I would need better sources to believe that these words are (a) English words and (b) of Slovak origin. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I think that we do have an English word that corresponds to "čačky", namely, tchotchke. But Merriam-Webster says "tchotchke" came to English from Yiddiah, derived from the obsolete Polish czaczko (and apparently other Slavic languages have similar words), so I don't think we can necessarily give the Slovak language credit for this word. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry for being terse/cheeky in my deprod rationale. I'm refering to this
    WP:TNT argument, that is also not a good use of prod. ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I've been deprodding where I believe the article shouldn't be deleted or where I would expect some controversy if the deletion were done at AfD. This deprod fell into the latter category for me and I hope I've sufficiently explained why. ~Kvng (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can't believe we have this article here for so many years.--Darwinek (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I prodded this, which was rejected. Agree with nom, little evidence for entries and definitely not a notable topic. Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turiya Hanover

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

Obscure member of former royal family which was deposed some time ago. The previous nomination in 2013 did not generate significant disussion. PatGallacher (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no demonstration of notability for jug ears cousin. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comment above.Smeat75 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't help myself and had to remove the deprecated source and blogs (all BLP violations). The remaining refs are an article on her husband's death and a link to her self-published "guided meditations". Not notable. JoelleJay (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete she was born 82 years after the family she married into was deposed from power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Star (Pakistan)

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

Article is not notable not passing WP:GNG no reference found in Google, not passing newspaper or news organization notability Memon KutianaWala (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 13:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, per this, this, and this. If I'm reading right: originally called the The Star of India, then changed to The Star after Partition, and operated in Karachi until 2005. Might meet
    WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum2.0 00:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metalheads (film)

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

Non notable film with no indication found during search that this film was ever completed or released, let alone reviewed. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:NFF. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. There's no sign that this was ever made. This article from 2015 says that a Kickstarter was launched to create a trailer (that looks to have been created per this tweet) but there's no evidence to show that the film was made. Even if filming had begun for the feature film (as opposed to just the trailer) I don't think that the coverage is heavy enough to really justify it passing NFF. It sounds like it'd be fun to watch if it does get made, but it just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per
    WP:NFF, the sources I can find relate to plans to make the film, not to a completed film. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adelson, Testan, Brundo & Jimenez

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

This is a semi-procedural nomination. I don't like speedy deleting articles that have sat around for 7 years; if nothing else, it means NPP have reviewed and checked it originally without intending to do so. Nevertheless, I can't find any obvious coverage that would allow me to improve this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did requested the speedy deletion as there no indication of importance in the article for the organization, and I believe my statement still applies. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater 17:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline speedy, as nothing in this article indicates that it is anything more than an average law firm in its space. BD2412 T 18:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom .
    talk) 23:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

talk) 14:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Parasgad (Vidhana Sabha constituency)

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

Reviewed as a part of new article review process. No indication of wp:notability. No sources except for "stats only" sources. As a result there is no real coverage or even description of what the topic is. Appears to be about a now-defunct political division. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creator is currently blocked.North8000 (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThere is indication of notability. Every assembly seat in Indian states tends to have a page devoted to it. This page lists results of 5-6 elections in which more than 100,000 voters vote. Yes, the seat is now defunct. Just as Soviet Russia is now not existing. Historical data is found on many a page on wiki. The page should very much stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.33.215.51 (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the above commenter said, Indian legislative seats all have articles (even if they are only stubs). Why delete this one? I agree with the above contributor. I-82-I | TALK 20:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The big problem is that due to no sources there's no article text that even says what this is. In your two posts you've written more than the article contains. Nowhere does it say that the geographic unit is a state. It's not even clear that the topic is an assembly....it talks about it being a "constituency". Why don't you write a few sentences in the article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article does say what it is, namely a former constituency of the lower house of Karnataka's legislative assembly. There were a few grammar errors and a lack of Wikilinks, and I have copyedited it a little for clarity. --bonadea contributions talk 21:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: State assembly constituencies in India do get a lot of coverage during elections. I don't see any reason to dispute its notability. As it was last contested in 2004, gathering online English-language sources may be difficult. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could somebody could write or fix a couple sentences to clarify what the topic of the article is? If so, that could qualify it as a keep even without sources. Is this article about an assembly? Is there a named geographic area / politically defined area that it covered? Does the assembly itself have a name or is it simply the assembly for a named geographic / politically area? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm starting to decode this. I thought that, being in English, that "Vidhana Sabha" was a proper noun referring to something specific. Upon further exploration I learned that it is the Indian language term for "assembly". It's beginning to look like this article just needs a lot of work, including translating it's title into English. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: Agreed, there should have been a better title. At this point, there is no consensus about how to name electoral districts in India -- Ab207 (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - legislative constituencies don't need notability. --Soman (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/withdraw Folks have added enough to at least say what the article is about. The title should be translated to English, particularly the "Vidhana Sabha" to "assembly". One that would clear it all up would be "Karnataka (Parasgad assembly electoral district) .North8000 (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you could have googled "Vidhana Sabha" before bringing this to AfD. Whilst "Legislative Assembly" is more common in English, "Vidhan Sabha" is used in English as well, see for example [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] --Soman (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying an implying is not accurate in several respects. There is no policy or guideline that says that this "does not need notability". Perhaps you are referring to the SNG's which defines specific attributes the get presumed notability/ presumed sourcing. But the closest thing in there to this is that individuals serving on national assemblies get that pass. Nothing in there about "all assemblies" much less all election districts of all assemblies. Which leaves this with
wp:gng as the only official route]] And this has no gng-suitable coverage, which is the main problem. I tend to let the borderline articles pass, but at AFD time this was such a mess, lacking even the most basic statements that it was unclear what this is really about. The translation of that term was only a small part of the problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry, but it does seem as if you did not take the time to try to check what the article was about – for instance, above you claim that Nowhere does it say that the geographic unit is a state, but if you look at the article at the time it was nominated, while it was not written in perfect English, the information was all there: a constituency of Vidhana Sabha (which can't simply be translated to "assembly", since it is a specific term referring to the State Legislative Assembly in an Indian state) in Karnataka state. "assembly constituencies" was indeed a confusing phrase, but it is better not to focus too much on that kind of detail. To change the title to "Karnataka (Parasgad assembly electoral district)" would be inaccurate since the topic is not Karnataka state, but the electoral district Parasgad, and "assembly electoral district" would not be sufficiently specific. If you believe that the title is problematic, you would need to address that at a different venue – as it is, this article title conforms to all the others in Template:Assembly constituencies of Karnataka (not getting into the "Vidhan/Vidhana" distinction here since I don't actually speak Kannada). That it "does not need notability" is, I agree, a confusing statement, but I believe the point is that electoral district on the state level are presumed to be notable. --bonadea contributions talk 12:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it due to lack of sources. And nothing in the mess and lack of sources indicated the possibility of a pass under SNG's. I don't believe that "electoral district on the state level are presumed to be notable." exists anywhere. If so, where did you get it from? And, yes, for a topic that fails both GNG and SNG, no clear text, and no sources, where the only possibility left is bending the rules to pass it, I didn't do a lot of further decoding and research work to see if I could come up with enough to bend the rules.North8000 (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But either way, thanks for everyone to the info and improving / clarifying the article. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Information on Legislative assembly constituencies are definitely needed. I will add few more resources to the Article.Vijeth N Bharadwaj 08:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shreeja Chaturvedi

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

The subject is described as a stand-up comedian active since 2018. Intro is pure puffery, and references are not that impressive. The article was moved from the draft by an editor who was later blocked for, well, moving articles from the draft for financial reimbursement (though we do not know exactly whether this one involved money). Let us discuss whether the article is notable enough for encyclopedia. Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply All (comic strip)

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

Not able to find any sources that show notability about this comic strip. James Richards (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was also unable to find any sources that provided substantial coverage, so I agree that it is not shown to be notable. HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The existing references consist only of two passing mentions of the strip when it came out almost a decade ago. They have more to do with the author and do not show notability of the comic. Similarly, I can find no significant coverage of the strip, only brief mentions in coverage of the author. Unless someone can find in depth coverage this strip is not notable. Meters (talk) 08:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added one reference and an external link which is the official site to the article. Does this help the article? Zoe1013 (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. A podcast by some guy does not establish notability, and neither do a few lines on social media. It's just more of the same, a decade-old passing mention of a new comic strip coming out. Has anyone published reliable sources about the strip which we can use to show the comic's actual notability? Simply being published is not notable. Meters (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The external link for the strip is fine, but it does nothing to establish notability either. It's simply a useful link to have in the article. Meters (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A subject needs at least one source (preferably multiple sources) that is independent of the subject, from a reliable source, and is substantial coverage. Detailed coverage in this vein can demonstrate that the subject is notable. Of the sources in the article now, the Washington Post Live Chat and links to the comic's official websites are not independent, the CBR article and the Daily Cartoonist article are not substantial, and the Philip Taylor / Part-Time Money interview is not reliable. Therefore there is not yet a demonstration that the subject is notable. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added another source. I hope it’s enough to keep the article here. Zoe1013 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It’s published on GoComics everyday. Zoe1013 (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one is saying it isn't published. What i said was Simply being published is not notable. Meters (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don’t understand it. How come Diamond Lil is considered notable on Wikipedia? But Reply All can’t be? Can’t Reply All be a redirect to GoComics? Zoe1013 (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac15 07:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Dana Chisholm

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

Biography of a living person who fails to meet the

WP:GNG. Almost all the references cited are primary and not independent of him, the Forbes articles are written by the subject. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater 11:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • i was edited the John Dana Chisholm page for additional information and improved the article-(talk) 23:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your good intentions, Apbook, but my opinion of the article is unchanged. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaaydaad

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

An article about a Bollywood film. The one reference is to a listing site which credits

WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per SNOW. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Henry

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

Disambig with only one bluelink and two redlinks. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I started Oliver Henry (USCG), this morning. Geo Swan (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate somehow Now Oliver Henry (USCG) has been created, and it looks good to me, the coastguard is probably the main topic. Yes, the nomination was never good. Thincat (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as a clearly proper disambiguation page. I was inclined to close this as a speedy keep on this basis, but will participate in the discussion to make this outcome clearer for the next admin who has the same thought. BD2412 T 18:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per BD and events that have transpired since nom. Cheers! -- puddleglum2.0 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayodhyapati

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-

WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fouad

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

The subject of this article is a non notable musician who fails

WP:MUSICBIO and already deleted thrice. None of the sources cited in the article are reliable, independent of him, and merely mentions of the subject but no wide coverage. Searches show nothing approaching reliable. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and, in order to have less time wasted in the future, salt. -- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and create a surname page for the 4 people surnamed Fouad (I don't myself see much point in lists of given-name holders, though there are a lot of them here: add a "look from" listing in the See Also") , or perhaps a dab page as it should also include
    Fouad (Family Guy), a redirect created 2014 ... ah, I wonder whether the 2017 deleted version of the page had a hatnote we've lost? PamD 08:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - It turns out that the singer's personal life has been noticed by the Ghana tabloids: [13], [14], but that does not help with his notability. The sources currently used in the article are from promotional sites that merely reprint press releases, which is common in the Ghana music industry. He has nothing
    significant and reliable as a musician. The same is true of his songs and albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SK1

(non-admin closure) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Samantha Vinograd

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

Does not meet NBIO or NJOURNALIST. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that she is notable in that she is the national go-to expert for CNN on National Security issues and writes for numerous national publications. I could list all the publications with citations. I tried to start a discussion somewhere on experts in their field and notability but no one replied. If prominent and numerous news sources solicit your expertise on a regular basis (she appears on CNN quite regularly), I think that is sufficient for notability. It would also have the side benefit of allowing the general public find out about who the expert is and I would expect over time, editors could add her opinions. 17:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
”keep” I think it’s convenient to have a place to look for a bio of a CNN analyst to understand her background. In this case she’s a child of Holocaust survivors. That’s exactly what I did after watching a CNN news clip entitled This is the scariest thing I’ve seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.98.137 (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:NJOURNALIST #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Being National Security Analyst at CNN meets this criterion. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
IMO, everyone whose title is "national security analyst" at CNN meets NJOURNO 1, for example Peter Bergen and Juliette Kayyem. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That just means national security analyst. Not every analyst is an expert in their field. For example, she hasn't ever published a book or an article in a peer reviewed journal. She doesn't have a PhD. She's not a professor. Can you point to her being widely cited by her peers? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If CNN news shows that repeatedly hire her are journalistic peers then she is widely cited by peers. There is nothing in NJOURNO1 that requires us to second-guess her peers whether or not she is an expert in her field. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what linking to a google search of her name is supposed to demonstrate. Can you provide examples of her being widely cited by her peers? That would mean examples of (1) her peers (2) citing her work (3) a lot. (CNN is her employer not her peer. Her "peers" in this case would be national security experts.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was a Google NEWS search, to demonstrate her being cited by her peers aka journalists, at CNN and elsewhere. NJOURNO relates to notability as a journalist, not as a national security expert. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's say her peers are other journalists. Has she been widely cited by journalists? (A google news search doesn't demonstrate that.) Which of her works have been widely cited by journalists? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple news stories at CNN and elsewhere that quote SV are examples of SV being "widely cited" by journalistic peers. NJOURNO1 requires that the journalist be widely cited, not that one or more of the journalist's "works" must be widely cited. Her Twitter account rather than her CNN work is also often quoted in news stories. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She's CNN's national security analyst. Her being published or quoted by CNN in no way counts as being "widely cited by her peers." You're confusing "being published" with "being cited". And if you're saying she's widely cited because her tweets are cited, well... LMAO. Ping me if you can up with like three examples of her being cited by her peers. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, some examples of being cited by peers:

References

  1. ^ "North Korea 'hacked crypto-currency'". BBC News. 2017-12-16. Retrieved 2020-07-28.
  2. ^ "Hackers steal funds from Bitcoin traders". BBC News. 2017-07-05. Retrieved 2020-07-28.
  3. ^ "South Korea plans to ban cryptocurrency trading, rattles market". Reuters. 2018-01-11. Retrieved 2020-07-28.
  4. ^ Lemon, Jason (January 13, 2019). "Trump Was 'Aiding and Abetting' Russian Intelligence By Allegedly Asking His Interpreter to Conceal Notes, National Security Expert Says". Newsweek. Retrieved July 27, 2020. CNN national security analyst Samantha Vinograd has suggested that President Donald Trump aided and abetted Russian intelligence..Discussing the report on CNN's New Day program on Sunday morning, Vinograd, who served as a national security expert within the administration of Trump's predecessor Barack Obama, said special counsel Robert Mueller no doubt took notice of the report and could investigate further.
  5. ^ Paschal, Olivia (October 4, 2018). "'We're Still Under Attack'". The Atlantic (magazine). Retrieved July 27, 2020. Samantha Vinograd, a former Obama administration official who is now a senior adviser at the University of Delaware's Biden Institute...Despite the efforts the U.S. has taken—sanctions, indictments, and investigations—'it's not working," Vinograd said. 'We're still under attack.'
  6. ^ Drezner, Daniel W (July 1, 2019). "The Trump foreign policy is all hat and no cattle". WaPo. Retrieved July 27, 2020. CNN's Samantha Vinograd notes that by going to the DMZ, Trump has signaled his comfort with the status quo. This puts far less pressure on Kim to make tangible concessions.
  7. ^ "Chinese Agents Helped Spread Messages That Sowed Virus Panic in U.S., Officials Say". NY Times. December 7, 2018. Retrieved July 27, 2020. Samantha Vinograd, who was on the National Security Council staff on loan from the Treasury Department during the Obama administration, replied to the council's tweet, recounting her experience with the disinformation.
  8. ^ "The Massage Parlor Owner Peddling Access to Trump Has Ties to Chinese Government-Linked Groups". Mother Jones. March 10, 2019. Retrieved July 25, 2020. Samantha Vinograd, a CNN national security analyst who worked for the National Security Council during the Obama administration, noted: "Our intel community has said China poses one of the most significant counterintelligence challenges—my money is on the Chinese Govt having at least picked up on [Yang's] access if they didn't direct it."
  9. ^ Haberman, Maggie (September 19, 2016). "Letter From Former Officials Urges Donald Trump to Detail Foreign Dealings". NYT. Retrieved July 25, 2020. Michael J. Morell, a former acting director of the C.I.A., and Michael G. Vickers, a former under secretary of defense for intelligence, put together the letter with input from Samantha Vinograd, a former senior adviser to Thomas E. Donilon, a former national security adviser.
OK, thanks for pulling some examples together, I agree this moves the needle but I'm seeing more
WP:NJOURN
here:
  • Newsweek is, indeed, citing her work, but Newsweek is junk; yellow at
    WP:RSP
    .
  • The Atlantic isn't citing her work, it's reporting on a panel, on which she was a panelist, and the panel was put together by The Atlantic (The Atlantic Festival). The report is written by a fellow panelist, and quotes what she said at the panel. Because it's written by a fellow panelist, and published by the same organization that put on the panel, it's not really independent, and I don't think it counts as citing Vinograd's work, as opposed to ... well, reporting what she said at a panel. That said, the fact that she was on the panel, if it doesn't count for NJOURN 1, I think would count towards NPROF 7, as it helps establish her as an expert in the area of national security, because The Atlantic is an RS, so being on an Atlantic-sponsored panel suggests impact outside academia.
  • WaPo/Drezner is a one-sentence mention, "CNN’s Samantha Vinograd notes that by going to the DMZ, Trump has signaled his comfort with the status quo. This puts far less pressure on Kim to make tangible concessions.", but it links to her CNN article, and it's a citation by another expert in a reliable source, so I'd say it counts.
  • No way that NYT or MJ quoting her tweets (among other people's tweets) counts as citing a journalist's work in the NJOURN 1 sense. In the NYT story, she's being quoted as a witness more than as an expert, in a story about receiving fake messages ("Samantha Vinograd, who was on the National Security Council staff on loan from the Treasury Department during the Obama administration, replied to the council’s tweet, recounting her experience with the disinformation.") The MJ story expressly quotes her as a national security expert, so that shows NPROF 7 again, but even though MJ is green at RSP, the entry there says "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.", and I think that caution should be applied here because MJ is citing her as a former Obama official for an anti-Trump point, so I don't think we should accord it much weight.
  • The last NYT link about her co-signing a letter doesn't count as citing her work as a journalist but as you said, it shows she gets respect from peers in the national security field and thus in my view would count towards NPROF 7 notability.
In all, based on these, I'm not convinced about GNG or NJOURN 1, but (1) her work being cited by Drezner in a WaPo op-ed, (2) serving on a The Atlantic expert panel, and (3) being a co-signer of a letter signed by a bunch of natsec experts reported in NYT, I think could establish NPROF notability (which doesn't require GNG). Before I felt we had zero substantiation; now I think we have more than zero (we have 3, to be exact; 3.5 if you add MJ ). With there being no delete !votes and if other editors think this is enough for NPROF 7 (or if there's more out there), I would withdraw the nom. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well Time cites her extensively in this story, likewise The Hill, calling her "a top national security official during the Obama administration"], and both those are green at
WP:RSP, so I still think she meets NJOURN1-- but I will be happy if you withdraw your nomination based on NPROF 7 instead. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Yup, and also her work at CNN and WaPo has been cited three times in opinion columns by David Leonhardt [15] [16] [17], alongside León Krauze, Margaret Sullivan (journalist), Kenneth M. Pollack, Andrew Bacevich, Fred Kaplan, and her sometimes-coauthor Michael Morell, all of whom have articles. So that's enough for me. Thanks for finding the sources HOC! Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 18:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh School

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

Doesn't meet

WP:ORG. Possible ATD is redirect to Raleigh, North Carolina#Private and religion-based schools. Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it takes a lot of good sourcing to show a school that is not at the secondary level is notable and we lack that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More of Me

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

TV movie with some notable actors but doesn't meet

WP:GNG itself. Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas King (courtier)

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

Assistant Private Secretary of the Queen is not inherently notable. Successful but doesn't meet

WP:GNG. A possible ATD is redirect to Private Secretary to the Sovereign#Assistant Private Secretaries to the Sovereign since 1878. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete held a non-notable position, not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (

talk) 20:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Alok Industries

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

Fails to meet

talk) 07:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Incredibly poor nomination
    WP:LISTED Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion.... Times of India [18], Business-standard [19], Bloomberg quint [20] [21] [22], Economic Times [23] [24] (all major and reliable sources in India). The company is listed on NSE. Although there is no inherent notability as per our wiki policy (that seems absurd to me especially for listed cos on our country's major exchange), the sources are more than enough for notability here. In my opinion, every single co. listed on a major stock exchange (all 1000+ listed on India's NSE) is notable by the mere fact that millions of people (small traders and retail investors to major FIIs) all have an interest in the company and it doesn't even matter if they have heard of the company, because its performance has an impact on the economy of the country. I could argue on and on, but this is not the venue. Editors need to be careful about nominating listed cos for deletion, especially if they don't have a finance background and are often so dismissive about their notability. - hako9 (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@Hako9: Bar perhaps one of the Economic Times sources, everything you cited is just basic routine coverage and doesn't go towards establishing notability. If you could send my MBA certificate by email that would be great. Thanks Zindor (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zindor: Hahaah basic routine coverage...Allow me to politely give you some free unsolicited advice. Media usually doesn't write a 25 page puff piece for a company unlike celebrities you may read in tabloids. The articles are usually to the point and concise. - hako9 (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep — nomination withdrawn and no !votes to delete

talk) 18:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply
]

Alan Wayne Jones

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

Doesn't meet

CAT:NN for over 11 years, hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The citation record on Google Scholar shows 7 publications with over 100 citations each (and another close), enough to convince me of a pass of
    WP:PROF#C1. And he has three major awards from three different organizations, each of which seems good enough for #C2 to me. I've cleaned up the article, which was written badly in a way that made him look like he was just a minor bureaucrat who retired; instead, he appears to have been a significant researcher whose research contributions have been widely recognized. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: based on high citations counts, and awards.Earthianyogi (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per excellent arguments above. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Joseph Boffa

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

Interesting career, but doesn't meet

WP:ATD is redirect to Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame#Inductees. Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be better known as Ernie Boffa. There's an entire book about him and he is discussed in plenty of others. [25] Spicy (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination you're absolutely right, under that name there is plenty of information. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch Gilchrist

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

Footballer who didn't appear at international level or in a fully professional league (all appearances were in old Scottish Second Division), so falls

WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with @
    WT:FPL) because my understanding is that the Scottish 2nd tier only became considered fully pro when the Scottish Premier League was founded in 1998? As such, this player fails NFOOTBALL - and also, importantly, GNG. GiantSnowman 09:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep passes
    WP:NFOOTY as far as I can see. Also there are literally hundreds of articles like this and many of them far less notable then this one. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of late 1960s Scottish media coverage - which should be no surprise with 10-years of second-tier Scottish football. While not everyone who ever walked on the pitch in the second tier might have been notable, a decade of play, and hundreds of matches, is going to get media coverage. I'd assume this is the same Enoch Gilchrist that played for Hamilton Croatia from about 1971 to at least 1973 - but I can't prove it. Nfitz (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not really moved closer to consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Udrea

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

The footballer has never played in a fully professional league, thereby failing

WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Regardless of nfooty, not seeing concensus here on GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per

WP:SK#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

David Allee

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

Successful artist but doesn't meet

CAT:NN for over 11 years so hopefully we can now resolve this issue one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I went thru his CV on his website to try to verify the museum collections listed there. I could only verify the Bronx Museum of the Arts [26] (the link shows his name in the list of featured articles.) The other collections failed verifications. The article is poor quality, but there may be notability. Netherzone (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment update - I went through every exhibition venue and collection listed in his wikipedia article, and every single one failed verification except the Bronx Museum. I have found three museum collections + one notable corporate collection. Netherzone (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was able to verify two museum collections: the Bronx Museum and the Santa Barbara Museum of Art. I've added citations for these to the article. I think that two museum collections means he passes our notability criteria. It's really odd not able to find anything on the other institutions' websites re: exhibits or presence in their collections. I could find some things that seemed to be copied from his website or his wikipedia article, so it's really a mystery. Netherzone (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject easily passes
    significant coverage of the subject (The New Yorker, The New York Times, Slate, Village Voice). The subject's site lists more examples as a springboard if we needed to go hunting for more. -Lopifalko (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Withdraw nomination per user:Netherzone's great work. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

WP:RFPP if necessary. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Michelle Tidball

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

Fails

💬💬) 05:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale for protection is that Tidball is likely to be searched for, but remain a minor profile, in the coming months because of her connection to the election. I doubt the user who created the redirect's intention was for this to become a standalone article, and the user who removed the redirect and created the standalone article has fewer than 50 edits.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 16:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SALT typically means protect a deleted page from recreation. In this case we'd be protecting a redirect which whilst nuanced is slightly different. But yes get your point and ultimately I think if (likely when) West's presidential run implodes this will probably be the final outcome. Glen 19:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
^^^^
💬💬) 21:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, and they are likely to find mention of her in the
Third-party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election sub-page. The fact that people will be googling her does not mean she needs a separate article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as G11.

(non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Lori Lee Shemek

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

Author and life coach. No sign of significant coverage. Does not meet

WP:GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article was created by a promotion-only account. Jack Frost, I personally would have tagged the article as G11 instead, since it's quicker than AfD. —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unforgettableid, I was tempted but erred on the side of AfD given it was not blatantly promotional, and you could make some argument given she has published a book and appeared on TV. Although, I have just looked at the article again and I am having second thoughts about the promotional bit.... Jack Frost (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Devokewater 11:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chess club. bibliomaniac15 07:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Centres

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

Unsourced, very little encyclopedic information is given about the topic. Only lists a bunch of places. We are not a dictionary. I am not even sure if this is something that deserves its own topic. Either delete or merge with Chess club. Aasim 04:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Aasim 04:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I hate to agree with my imposters, merge to chess club - this appears to be an advertising term used for more "upscale" chess clubs or the like. (the real) GeneralNotability (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unreferenced, fails
    WP:GNG, looks also a bit spammy. Sophia91 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to chess club- I can't find any reliable sources making such a strange distinction. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to chess club. I don't know that it's suitable for merging since there are no in-text citations at all. Citrivescence (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac15 07:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Janma

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-

WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Searches found nothing of substance. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to concerns around
    WP:GNG Spiderone 14:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 18:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hooper, California

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

Hooper was a rail stop on the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe at the crossing with the Pittsburg Railroad.[[27]] Hooper was an industrialist who had a major role in developing the area. Topo maps from 1918 show no buildings at or around the crossing. There is no indication that it was ever a community. Nothing to indicate that it meets basic notability criteria. Glendoremus (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Seems to have been an interlocking which has long since been removed in the middle of an industrial area. Mangoe (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Home of Pittsburgh

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

Un-referenced article about an extremely small local hospital that doesn't have cite any references and is written like an advert. I'm not seeing anything about this that would pass the notability standards of

WP:NORG. Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree that the article was blatantly promotional (even giving the opening hours!) when it was nominated. I cut the promotional material to a minimum, and added a lot of citations, including the Pittsburgh Press, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Meadville Evening Republican, plus a mention in a Child Welfare journal article. There's a lot more that could be done: the organization started in 1893, and I think there's more that could be found to verify the facts about its growth. Still, I think the existing citations now demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There should at least be regional or national coverage of it. The Child Welfare artice seems like trivial coverage, as does the one about Rick Santorum visiting the hosptial, and the rest are local news outlets. I appreciate the promo cleanup though. The opening hours were pretty ridiculous. Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meadville is regional, about 90 miles away from Pittsburgh. That's about an hour and a half away by car, and (since the source I've used is from 1897) even farther away by horse. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meadville Evening Republican is a local newspaper. It doesn't suddenly become a regional news outlet just because its an hours drive away. Just like it doesn't change the nature of my local newspaper, or turn into a regional one, just because every now and then it runs stories about a town 3 hours away from here. Nor did a local newspaper from the other side of the country suddenly become a national news outlet for covering a natural disaster that happened here a few years ago. That's not how it works or what the guidelines say. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every newspaper in the United States is published in a particular location; I believe the only exception is USA Today. Are you suggesting that every newspaper is local, and therefore it is not possible to use newspapers to demonstrate notability? If so, I would like to see a link to the guideline that supports that view. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:AUD is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, you recently said that the Chicago Tribune is "local", and Chicago is the third largest city in the US. Besides The New York Times, can you name two other newspapers that you would consider to be "regional" or "national"? — Toughpigs (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Toughpigs, USA Today is probably the only major truly national paper. Even the NYT is a local paper for New York, it covers local stories in much more depth i.e. click on the New York Tab on their website. I don't think the USA really has non-'local; papers in the same way smaller countries like the UK do (TheGuardian, Telegraph). All the major papers cover non-local stories with their own journalists, The Boston Globe definitely covers and breaks stories of national interest, as do the LA times, the Chicago Tribune, Washington Post. But you need to be careful saying because something is regional it isn't notable. Many American states are larger than small European countries, something regional in scale can be quite notable and reach millions of people, some of these papers are much larger than the biggest paper in a given country. PainProf (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall Street Journal. Maybe that's more international though. Anyway, I don't see how USA Today being a national outlet is really relevant to Meadville Evening Republican being a local newspaper. Which is what the discussion is about. Not me saying something being regional isn't notable, because that's not what I said, or I wouldn't have quoted
WP:AUD doesn't make an exception to the one regional source rule for America. It's your prerogative if you want to claim a local newspaper is a national one because there's no such thing as local newspapers or whatever. I don't personally find it a compelling argument or one that fits the guidelines though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
In practice, I think people generally consider newspapers from big cities as "regional" coverage. The point that WP:AUD is making is about the size of the audience. I would agree that the weekly paper in Tinytown, Arkansas is a "local" newspaper that doesn't confer notability on the Tinytown Junior High fund-raising pancake breakfast. Pittsburgh is a big city. The fact that there's coverage in Meadville means that the Children's Home is known outside Pittsburgh city limits — i.e., in the Pittsburgh region. Dismissing every city newspaper as "local" is not a correct interpretation of policy, as you can see in many recent AfD discussions. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meadville isn't a big city though and your the one that brought up the Chicago Tribune. Your also the one that keeps arguing about "cities" and what constitutes a "city" newspaper in all these AfDs when the notability guideline is about "local" newspapers. Which is completely different. As I've said before, I don't think something being covered in two "local" newspapers makes it fit the "regional source" clause in
WP:AUD, and both exist for a reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jitegemee

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

The article has been badly sourced for a while now and all the ones that are currently in it are primary references. I wasn't able to find anything about it that would pass

WP:BEFORE either. There was an AfD for it in 2015 that resulted in keep, but the only argument against deleting it seemed to resolve around systemic bias or something. Adamant1 (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep I found [28], [29], [30], [31]. If it survives AfD, I'll add them to the article.   // Timothy :: talk  04:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue: Add them now. Quoting from the standard AFD notification, "Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion". Narky Blert (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much safer not to add them now. If you do and the article still gets deleted you'll have to find even more again to avoid
WP:G4 if you decide to recreate the article. Reliable sources need to exist, not necessarily be cited in the article. Thincat (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there. Putting them in the article gives passerby's a much better idea of the sourcing as a whole. Plus, I highly doubt it would matter later on if the article is recreated. Good sources are good sources. Not that I'm saying they are because I haven't checked, but if they were it wouldn't matter to G4 because it covers content, not sourcing. Just don't phrase the article the same and there shouldn't be a problem, but that would be true if the new sources are added to it or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to add them to the article, sorry I've been slow in doing so.   // Timothy :: talk  19:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow Up I put some work in ce the article and adding the references. There is still information and work that can improve the article, but it's a start. If for some reason this article does not make it through AfD (I think it should, but just in case), I request the closer Draftify the article so I can continue work on it. Thanks for your patience.   // Timothy :: talk  00:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article seems to meet
    WP:GNG.A popular youth project in the country that has been featured in multiple news papers and news site.Best Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per
    WP:HEY and Timothy's sources. I think The Bright Continent: Breaking Rules and Making Change in Modern Africa looks especially strong. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac15 07:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lumumba Secondary School

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

The article is a basic one sentence description of the school, it hasn't cited any sources since at least 2013, and I couldn't find anything about it in a

WP:NORG. Wikipedia isn't a directory. Adamant1 (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article has no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our coverage of African topics is appalling. Let's not make it even worse by deleting an article on Zanzibar's largest secondary school, as confirmed by the very first Google Books hit for the title.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If heard your arguement come up in AfDs a lot. Maybe the coverage of Africa is appalling because the sources on African topics are appalling. While it sucks that's the case, it doesn't mean there should be an exception to the notibility guidelines for Africa or that Wikipedia should have an article on everything even slightly related to Africa "because Africa." Its not like there isn't some pretty well sourced subjects related to Africa in Wikipedia though and the whole thing is sorta akin the soft bigotry of low expections IMO. Likely people in the English wiki just haven't put the time into finding good African sources because they assume their aren't any. Which then circularly leads to talking points similar to yours. Adamant1 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, didn't you just assume that there aren't any sources about this African subject? There are, and they are readily available. Just look for them before nominating articles for deletion, per
Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The thing about an AfD is that it isn't about sources "existing"
WP:NORG. Maybe familiarize yourself with them next time before you vote or criticize a nominator. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, it is about sources existing. See
WP:NEXIST. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Not really just existing though, because even
WP:NEXIST AfDs aren't a place to just dump a bunch of random indiscriminate sources. So we can call the whole done and keep every article "because sources." It's a little more nuanced then that. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tralins

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

I came across this article when investigating copy/pastes and realized the subject likely isn't notable. Although he's published a lot of works, I don't really see any credible reviews or news coverage that would meet GNG (or any accomplishments that would meet NAUTHOR). Correct me if I'm wrong though Sam-2727 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that the previous AfD discussion talked about his obituary. But are there any other reliable sources besides that? Sam-2727 (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Weak Keep I did some digging and everything I found is in the article at the moment. Basically: pulp fiction author who wrote, among many, many other things, some nasty racist books in the 1970s. His most notable activity was to ghost-write a book (although he was credited on the cover) about prostitution that was labelled obscene and then got to the Supreme Court, which said it wasn't obscene. Doesn't pass
    inherited from the court case (which probably wasn't notable either—obscenity cases were a dime a dozen in the old days). On the other hand: he's interesting as an emblem of some of the more sordid trends in mid- to late-20th century American lowbrow fiction. Could live with this article as the stub it seems destined to remain; could also live with tossing it in the garbage. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Also would note the oddly extensive article in dewiki. I don't read German, but the article has a list of mostly English-language sources—none of which turned up in my searches. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Went through the sources cited in the dewiki article and they check out. He was listed in a few biographical dictionaries of writers at the time. I'm starting to be convinced that he was a known quantity; I changed my !vote above accordingly. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found several more articles on Tralins from The Miami Herald and The Tampa Bay Times, which I added to the article. The racist and prostitution books were in the 60s — in the 70s, he started writing about the supernatural, and some of his stories were adapted for TV in the 90s. There's enough coverage to pass GNG. — Toughpigs (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as enough coverage to pass the GNG. Archrogue (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a deceased author with historical value and passes
    WP:GNG. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krunker.io

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

Note: Melofors, as the page creator, has not been notified of this AFD as the user is currently blocked indefinitely.

After reviewing the article's five sources listed here, it eventually became clear to me that the game in question does not meet

WP:VG/SE
does not help either.

FanBolt, MakeUseOf, ScienceFiction.com, and Tech News Today appears to be blogs, and 3 of the citations from them have the title among the lines like "Top 10 Best Browser Games", so it's not a significant mention anyway. Some more sources I found in regular Google search are GameSpace.com, but it's not reliable as well as it appears to me that

you can make an account there and start writing anything you want without editorial oversight
.

This leaves us with Koalition, which I'm not sure if it's reliable or not (their about page appears to be convincing, except it has an email for advertising queries), but even if it were, one reliable source is not enough to make it notable. theinstantmatrix (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. theinstantmatrix (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment MakeUseOf is an editor-oversighted site, but that still would leave even just one source - and that being a listicle ,not even a GNG-appropriate source - for this. --Masem (t) 03:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough reliable sources to pass
    WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without any delete proposals. A page move can be discussed on the article talkpage.

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Mathis Mootz

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

Despite the article saying this DJ is prolific there doesn't seem to be anything about him that passes

WP:BEFORE either. There does seem to be a lot of stuff about his side project Panacea though. Which doesn't currently seem to have an article in Wikipedia. Maybe the best route would be to create one since it looks to be notable and go with that. Instead of having an article about him. Since he doesn't appear to be notable on his own and neither does his other band. Which appears to take up a lot of the article. Panacea redirects to his article though. Which makes me think maybe it wasn't notable either. Adamant1 (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While he might have other side projects, if none of them are notable except for Panacea and he's not known by his real name then I think it could strongly be argued that either an article under Mathis Mootz isn't notable enough, but one under Panacea would be. The problem though is that Panacea was deleted in 2007 in this AfD. So, if Panacea is notable enough for an article now then that AfD should be refunded and the article should be created. That's a different issue then if "Mathis Mootz" is notable or not though. Which is who this article and the AfD is about. I'd like to point out to that most DJs who go under a stage name from what I've seen have articles under their stage name.
For instance DJ Shadow not Joshua Paul Davis, Deadmau5 not Joel Thomas Zimmerman, etc etc. Most have hardly notable side projects to, but it doesn't seem to warrant an article under their full name in most of those cases. The important to notability and what warrants is what they are most commonly referred to as and in this case it's Panacea. So, there should be a Panacea article, but again that's not related to Mathis Mootz not being notable. BTW, I think it's a semi different thing with DJs then it is with say bands where a band member might have an article if they notable enough on their own as part of the band and I think the difference is reflected in the clear precedent for articles about DJ largely being under the name they are popularly known as. Also, my guess is that if a Joshua Paul Davis or Joel Thomas Zimmerman article were created they would likely be forwarded to DJ Shadow and Deadmau5 respectively. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can rename this article if you want to but in both those cases it describes the person and their name is before their stage name in the lead. It makes no sense to go back to an 2006 version when there has clearly been significant change since then and as you know that is a weak AfD with limited participation and all rationale as per nom so it isn't relevant in this discussion. PainProf (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, change your vote to Rename then. I don't really care. Just keeping it doesn't lead to it being renamed and your the one that thinks it's the best option. I was under the impression that if there was an AfD for an article with the same name that it's better to do a refund instead of just creating a whole new article with the same title. Otherwise, it would have to go to draft space first or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, we would just move the page to the new name no need to do anything difficult and I don't really think we need to move, but I couldn't care less. There's already a redirect and it's in the lead so it's pretty clear to me. PainProf (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sounds like PainProf has found significant coverage for the musician. Renaming a page is easy, if we think it's more appropriate. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw and move to Panacea (DJ) or whatever. Someone else can do the move though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Heart Catholic Church

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

Fails

WP:NCHURCH. Of the sources in the article, one is just a photograph and the other does not even mention the church. I searched on the University of Oregon's Historic Oregon Newspapers website and I didn't find anything beyond routine listings for events at the church like this. My Google search also fails to turn up any significant coverage of the building or congregation. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_July_26&oldid=971018722"