Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Java version history

Java version history (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 steps over the line of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There may be an article to write on the history of
  Wikipedia is not a directory; listing JEPs and syntax changes is the role of a changelog, not an encyclopedia. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I agree that having all JEPS for the article is not useful, but the kind of informations provided in the articles are not available easily. The fact that there is an overview of main changes for major versions is useful IMO. At the beginning, the article listed major changes, but I think that as times passed, editors began to include every small changes in the article, which was not the intent. So my advice would be to remove all the minor updates dates (and those changes which only bring , and only keep the key focus changes. However referring the JEP number is important I think because it is often the only way to source the change. As for the fact that a lot of informations are sourced by Oracle pages, I think that it's just because editors tried to source every release and lazily linked to the more easily available information. BTW, a lot if not all of version history articles here have exactly the same pattern. For example .NET Framework version history , Qt version history, the Ruby history, the version table for Python, the Google Chrome version history, the Firefox version history, etc... If we delete this article, we should delete them too (they have exactly the same "problems") Hervegirod (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, affirming what
  WP:NOTADVERTISING. But I think a positive outcome of this discussion should be a clarified policy for all programming language versions going forward, because inevitably the sourcing will be largely singular for each and every small feature update/syntax change. Shushugah (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Shushugah (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, support rewrite: Per
  (Honk!) 02:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep without a major rewrite, but with more independent sources. The only significant issue with this page is with
  WP:NOTCHANGELOG (point 4), which states that reliable third-party sources should be used. The information itself should be kept on Wikipedia, perhaps with some minor trimming if it is deemed excessive (as also mentioned in point 4). Modernponderer (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per Modernponderer. More 3rd party sources should be used, and the level of detail trimmed a bit, but this is verifiable, useful, and notable. No reason to delete it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @
  SuperGoose007, Modernponderer, and DESiegel: did you have any particular sources in mind? We need actual (reliable independent) sources to argue notability. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I don't know, BenKuykendall, I haven't looked. but for a a language as widely used and written about as Java, I would be utterly astounded if at least the major versions were not well described in reliable 3rd party sources. Texts on the language seem like a good starting place, I know there are many of those. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  WP:BEFORE didn't even factor into this nomination! Modernponderer (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Excellent sources by Modernponderer, easily meets GNG, but article could be improved. Nfitz (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep might need a bit of cleanup, but obviouly notable. Eternal Shadow Talk 00:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Merge to
  WP:RS to expand this article with. A Google Scholar search brings up nothing of relevance and a standard Google search just includes other tertiary listings of version history. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC) + changed !vote --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:36, 3 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.

Terri (Musician)

Terri (Musician) (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 of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the subject is currently notable in nigeria, he may not have enough online coverage but offsite he's well known in nigeria as a musician, this subject is signed to Starboy Entertainment, only artiste signed by Wizkid, arguably the biggest afrobeats musician in Nigeria, there alot of Nigeria musicians on wikipedia that have same coverage and notability rate as his.Amosflash (talk)

• Comment — it should be noted that the editor above is the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:TOOSOON. If you hang around the Bands/Musicians AfD page long enough, you will see many articles on up-and-coming Nigerian musicians that look suspiciously similar. Here young Terri follows the usual path: a whole bunch of short media notices in publications that reprint press releases in that country, such as "Pulse" and "Guardian" (which is not the reliable British newspaper). This Wikipedia article is part of that same publicity push. He has not yet received reliable press coverage that actually reviews his works with a critical eye. Good luck to him but he is not yet eligible for Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete We do not keep articles because of unsourced claims of "he is well known". Show us sources, they do not have to be online but they need to be both reliable and independent of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Sound Explosion

The Sound Explosion (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 notability, no sources. Glucken123 (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - No evidence that
  WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well, the article does not contain any sources and the Greek Wikipedia does not have an article about this band either. But I agree with you FOARP, this guy need to slow down with the AfDs about Greek bands/musicians. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Basically agree 100% with GhostDestroyer100. --Micky (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The Soundex is not a notable band either. I think I will start an AfD because I found nothing about it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is pretty wide and substantial coverage by Greek music and cultural websites/portals/magazines of the group, its history, productions and activities [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], or at personal sites of well known music reviewers [15]. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chalk19, who has actual Greek sources. I suspect that this string of deletion nominations for Greek bands was not done with due care and attention, ditto the non-Greek speakers who claim there are no sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the multiple Greek reliable sources identified in this discussion so that
  WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 3 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 to delete, default to keep. This was already re-listed once, and generated no further discussion, so I'm closing it. It could arguably have been closed as keep, but, on balance, I'm not convinced that discussion has reached the point of consensus. However, the Korean language sources cited by both keep !votes are unrebutted. Steve Smith (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point Blank (2008 video game)

Point Blank (2008 video game) (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 believe this game does not meet Wikipedia's notability policy. I was unable to turn up any reviews from reliable publications, nor do the three sources used in the page come from non-primary, reliable websites. Could also find nothing on MobyGames (it doesn't even seem to have a page for it) or the Wayback Machine. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is an in-depth coverage at
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Sources exist, if they are not in the article then that can be rectified for anyone who is so inclined, but that is not a reason to delete in the meantime per
  WP:DINC. --Micky (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Could you point me to these sources? If you're referring to the ones that Jovanmilic uncovered, it's a good start but we'll need more coverage from other sources. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 02:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably referring to those mentioned in the post above his. Dream Focus 14:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Coverage in Japanese/Korean sources seems significant. I searched for English sources and only found a passing mention at https://www.vg247.com/2020/01/17/next-gen-light-gun-games-shooters-ps5-xbox-series-x/ "there are a lot of thirty-somethings with disposable income and enormous amounts of nostalgia for things like Virtua Cop and Point Blank." The Korean sources are enough though. Dream Focus 14:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I searched for English sources and found only a passing mention, therefore it makes the game notable." Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • btw, the source you provided is talking about a completely unrelated Namco lightgun shooter of the same name, not the Korean browser game. Not like it makes that big of a difference, since we have yet to see any reception for this game or any actually significant coverage. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say that passing mention made it notable. I said the Japanese/Korean sources proved it was notable so it didn't matter if English sources were found. Dream Focus 16:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We need reception, though. This game has gotten released in the US and in many other countries, so surely some has to be found for this. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with Dream Focus that the existing Korean sources are enough. For reception in English, I think the above-quoted statement that thirty-somethings are nostalgic for Point Blank indicates that the game is well-liked and memorable. The game was produced in 2008 and the magazines that reviewed it may not be immediately accessible. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The English source is useless because it is talking about a completely different game. This is not the same as the unrelated arcade game of the same title. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 17:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found another coverage of the game in
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religious community

Religious community (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 article is based on the ambiguity of the word "community". Much of the article appears to be

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (Added 20 June) Changed to abstain following discussion below. The criticism of the article as it stands seems reasonable (I haven't considered it in close detail), but the article is potentially valuable. It's an incomplete stub, needing adding to and editing. Perhaps a start would be to create empty headings on Tibetan Buddhist, Japanese, in antiquity, etc. communities? I don't see a problem with the ambiguity of the word "community"; I personally think that the article should focus on things like monasteries, with a brief mention that "community" is often taken to mean people with a shared attribute living in the wider world - I don't think there's a great deal to say about this wider use beyond possibly a link to the different religions. Pol098 (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Added: I've made a start, rewriting the OR (as my OR), separating out Catholicism, and adding stub sections for Buddhism and Orthodox Christianity. Pol098 (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pol098: Where does the article title come from? Where is it defined? We can't just pull together things that seem similar to us and join them in an article. What sources describe the subjects you are discussing together? What is the difference from this article and Institute of consecrated life? or Monasticism? Daask (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added to article. I don't want to get into a discussion with one editor so may not respond further here; let's see the consensus. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article does not currently draw a meaningful distinction between a religious community and a monastery, the latter already being amply covered, and the other uses (eg. Mennonites) appear to be in the same generic sense of "community" that one might say "the Jewish community" or "the Muslim community." @Pol098: can you please elaborate on how this page is not redundant to our coverage of monasticism? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the knowledge to go further, and don't have an opinion strong enough to try to make a case. If there are "religious communities" that don't fall under monasticism (I don't know if there are), maybe the article is justified; if not, perhaps not. If not justified as a separate article, possibly a disambiguation to Monasticism on the one hand, articles on the wider use on the other? Certainly present content (with my additions, just empty stub sections for different religions) isn't satisfactory. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for misunderstanding (perhaps) your role in the article. I'm inclined to say that the best course of action is probably to redirect this title to Religious order, since, when used as a term of art rather than the generic sense of "a community of people following the same religion," this appears to be what it refers to. I don't know if any kind of disambiguating hatnote at that target would be helpful, since I don't know what articles we have that cover the idea of people in a community following the same religion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning towards using some
  WP:TNT I think there is some reason for having an article on the history of communal living in various religions, but this article is definitely not going down that route and its current direction, towards cataloging every type of non-parochial body in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, is redundant. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Agreed. Beyond the monastic orders, there has been various groups living in a community based upon a common religious outlook (e.g., Oneida Community, Rajneeshees, Hutterites, United Order, Branch Davidians, et al.) But as noted, the article would need serious work and better focus.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 23:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but allow mass cleanup of everything unsourced. Tessaracter (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Daask. The subject is really unclear, and the term 'religious community' is too broadly used to have a meaningful article. --hippo43 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article uses two opposing definitions for "religious community". Using both of those definitions at the same time is not really an option, so if this is to become a useful article, one of them should be chosen. If we choose the one definition, we might as well redirect to
  religious organisation, though currently that article is focused on legal aspects and does not discuss the sociological aspects. I do not see the need for a separate article named "religious community". PJvanMill (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: This afd reminds me of a similar recent afd -
  Harsh 23:22, 4 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. Steve Smith (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gold (Bonnie Tyler album)

Gold (Bonnie Tyler 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)

This compilation album is not notable. It did not chart worldwide, there is little information about this release elsewhere. Skyrack95 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails
  WP:NALBUM. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect unless additional sources discussing the album are added. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Disney Wish

Disney Wish (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 comply with

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Disney Cruise Line, coverage demonstrating notability does not appear to exist yet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Rosguill. As it is a confirmed future ship of the Disney Cruise Line, it is likely to be searched between now and the time it becomes notable. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Disney Cruise Line#Future. When and if this ship does launch it’ll definitely warrant a page, but we aren’t there yet—and I’d be surprised if the ship launches on schedule. — Narsil (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Disney Cruise Line#Future. Notability not established. It may be notable by class. Spshu (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Disney Cruise Line#Future. In the future it can possibly be it's own article. Eternal Shadow Talk 00:54, 3 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 06:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oporadhi

Oporadhi (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)

Failed

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 10 June 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, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Related discussions: 2019-09 Arman Alif ✗ delete

Logs: 2019-04 ✍️ create

• Keep: The song and its music video have received some coverage, both in English and Bengali. The sources indicated in the article are reliable. Though the artist doesn't have his own article (which is my concern), I believe the song is good enough to pass
  WP:NSONG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete With one exception, all the sources cited are only demonstrating it was highly-ranked in a non-reliable chart that fails
  WP:NSONGS as that standard is written. No obvious merge or redirect target appears to exist. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - Although it has reliable sources, it fails
  WP:NSONGS. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aiobahn

Aiobahn (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 significant coverage, only sources available and presented are of the musician's work, all of which do not have independent notability. Not inherited from appearances on notable record labels. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if they are notable or not but coverage of their music definitely counts for
  WP:NMUSIC and the record label is a factor as one of the criteria is to have two albums on a major label, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If this is the label I'm thinking of, then all they've released on that label is singles. Aside from singles and remixes, only a single extended play. No known original albums at this time; a quick check at the artist's MusicBrainz profile shows a remix package listed as an album. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now - the only major source I can find in Japanese is widely published [23], but it originates from PR Times. I also couldn't establish if any of his releases charted. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Its Lilli here, could you please re-evaluate my page? Let me know what else I would need to provide. I have published articles in a few publications, I'm also verified on Facebook & Twitter, and have over 4 million followers between my platforms. Thank you

[24]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6491403/Model-28-lost-weight-faced-backlash-fans-like-better-plumper.html

[25]https://www.thedubrovniktimes.com/news/dubrovnik/item/5025-famous-plus-size-model-touched-by-the-kidness-of-people-in-dubrovnik Blargedyblarg (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lilli Luxe

Lilli Luxe (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)

Tagged for notability since 2016, not fixed. References are differently reliable. Guy (help!) 11:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What do you mean by "differently reliable"? If there are high quality references we should keep the page. pburka (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the references are not enough to meet the notability guidelines for models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Her notability in the press seems to stem from the fan backlash in 2018 to her weight loss (i.e. a single event and not ongoing notability) - otherwise a quick search couldn't source any reliable material on her. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 clearly WP:GNG

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 20:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: @

WP:BEFORE? SportsOlympic (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Well known in Belgium as a VRT reporter. He also started on the pirate radio stations which liberated the Dutch radio and television for other broadcasting stations, and he wrote a stack of books. Clearly notable. KittenKlub (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 21:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The Radio stations caused it, not an individual DJ. His main notability is as a reporter for more than 30 years. He is notable in Belgium.KittenKlub (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known reporter and radio broadcaster. I think it complies with

WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable radio producer. Have always been good references in the article. I still don’t understand the reasoning with “clearly” of the nominator. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He has received some coverage. Sources in the article are reliable, it's good enough to pass
  WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:57, 1 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 06:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeen Raten

Rangeen Raten (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 without even a plot summary sourced only to non-

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 19:13, 3 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 04:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tankhah

Tankhah (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 without even a plot summary, sourced only to non-

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 19:12, 3 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.

Record Makers

Record Makers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article does not seem to pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
  talk) 00:02, 4 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) 20:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Garnar

Jason Garnar (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)

Very local politician fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete county politician isn't notable unless they've gotten a lot of coverage-- Garnar hasn't Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article lacks the sourcing needed to establish notability, and the page reads more like a promotional biography.TH1980 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. County legislators generally do not get articles, unless they have received
  WP:SIGCOV. The article has a promotional tone. LefcentrerightDiscuss 05:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, A local legislator does not count as notable. Alex-h (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable county executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per
  WP:GNG as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Politicians at the county level are not "inherently" notable just because they exist — to clear the bar as notable enough for Wikipedia, he would have to be able to show a lot of
  self-published website about itself, which is not what it takes to make a person notable for this. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Warfare Noise

Warfare Noise (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. Bolhones (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep While the sourcing isn't best, the subject is still seemingly notable enough for having own page. Wareon (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show how it is notable according to WP:NALBUM? Richard3120 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the album: [30], [31], [32] and [33]. With these sources, the album is good enough to pass
  WP:NALBUM. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Only Ultimate Guitar is a reliable source, and in none of those sources is there anything more than a one line passing mention. Richard3120 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have overturned the previous "keep" closure of this discussion. See Special:Permalink/964632624#NAC. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

OtherView

OtherView (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)

Another unknown band on Wikipedia with unreliable sources. Glucken123 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - No evidence that
  WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have overturned the previous "keep" closure of this discussion. See Special:Permalink/964632624#NAC. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:N. Even after 3 weeks of AfD, the article cites no reliable sources. Sandstein 06:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The sourcing is miserably insufficient. PJvanMill (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete The band does exist; their youtube content has decent views. But I can't find a single english source while checking through search engines. Keeping in mind that the band member's article is also nominated (I understand that cannot be the reason to delete this article), I am leaning towards delete because it doesn't meet notability req. Maybe there is local sourcing but it hasn't been presented. So weak delete-
  Harsh 23:19, 6 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. Sandstein 06:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kabhi Saas Kabhi Bahu

Kabhi Saas Kabhi Bahu (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 series 17jiangz1 (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis this television series is deleted. You have no stable proof of deleting this series, then this series should not be deleted. Kaitudi (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:NTV, which says, "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." This is a comedy series that aired on DD National in India, a national channel. There are three sources currently cited in the article which the nominator did not mention in their two-word deletion rationale. Why does the nominator believe that this show is not notable? — Toughpigs (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I have overturned the previous "keep" closure of this discussion. See Special:Permalink/964632624#NAC. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Viking Crown

Viking Crown (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 band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Anselmo is notable, obviously. But not everything he did is notable. Viking Crown is an example. I could not find anything besides unreliable databases such as Metal Archives, Discogs, Spirit of Metal, Rate Your Music and the like. The rest of the results were retail sites, blogs, trivial mentions, name checks and stuff where only the words are used, which does not make anyone/anything notable either. The article of the first album have no sources whatsoever, while the second one is sourced to an Allmusic review only. The band has an Allmusic biography page which establishes notability. I also found a review of their second album on Metal.de. But I still don't know if that site is reliable or not. The article itself is also poorly sourced to Rockdetector and Encyclopedia Metallum. I don't know about the former, but I know for a fact that the latter is not notable. The band's name is mentioned in books about metal music, but that's it (for example: "Vision of Disorder, Viking Crown,...") so it seems like there is no reliable sources whatsoever. I also searched with his name included but I could not find anything more besides trivial mentions (during interviews with Phil, mentioning it during his career etc.), name checks and shop sites. So it seems it did not have any notability outside of Phil Anselmo. I find that interesting since Phil Anselmo himself is clearly notable but it seems this short-lived project of his did not attract much attention and remained underground. The band has articles on the Norwegian and Italian Wikipedias too, but the sourcing is crappy on both of them. So I say, Viking Crown is not notable on its own, but it can be redirected to Anselmo's article (the band itself has a paragraph there). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Phil Anselmo as one of his many side projects. Viking Crown is occasionally mentioned in long magazine articles about things Anselmo has done, but I can find no reliable media coverage in which this act was discussed on its own merits. They are only found in the basic list sites as found by the nominator, and the same is true of their albums. However, experts may search for the name, so they can be directed to Anselmo's page where Viking Crown already has a basic mention. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found this album review. Chronicles of Chaos is a reliable source. Okay, maybe I rushed this up, I nominated too quick. We have several reliable sources now (Allmusic biography + Allmusic album review, Metal.de Album Review, Chronicles of Chaos Album Review). I will put these sources in the article and I think we can keep it. (The reason I started this AfD was the fact that initially I did not find any reliable source, and by searching "Viking Crown" the unreliable sources still outweigh the reliable ones. You have to search really hard to find these.) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If you wish to withdraw the nomination, you may do so. Chubbles (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning toward Keep on this one. The metal.de review, AMG's bio and review, a (short) bio on the old Rockdetector, plus this interview states that a piece in Revolver led to the band's breakup, which means Revolver was covering the group in 2001. I've little doubt that other metal rags ca. 2001 would turn up more coverage. Chubbles (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ok, I withdraw the AfD, the article can be kept. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Aries (journal)

Aries (journal) (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 for what is a society journal. Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable and no citations to counter this. --Micky (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism. I found a good source to cover the journal in that article (Western Esotericism: A Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 159–160), but I don't think it's enough to make the journal independently notable. Ffranc (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, indexed in Scopus, meets
  b} 14:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per Headbomb. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above. BD2412 T 03:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Headbomb; also, the editor-in-chief was Wouter Hanegraaff (2001-2010). GenoV84 (talk) 22:14, 1 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 06:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srinagar (film)

Srinagar (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 future film, very little coverage about the film, most citations in article do not actually even mention the film described, or come from unreliable sources, does not meet

• Delete The only citation to mention it is this one in Hindi. (Google Translate is nice)
   Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 18:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - can always be created if/when it does become notable Spiderone 19:13, 3 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) 20:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CallMeCarson

CallMeCarson (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)

YouTuber with a high number of subscribers and a large fanbase, but doubtful that he passes

Delete per nom. No evidence of GNG. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm seeing Newsweek and Distractify pieces, but not sure if those are enough to satisfy GNG. — Infogapp1 (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources provided above might be reliable for news but not for concluding anything about notability. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Conrad Global Patient Safety Award

Pete Conrad Global Patient Safety Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While Pete Conrad is certainly notable, and while this award has been given to some notable individuals, the independent coverage of this award in

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I concur with the nominator's analysis. While there are plenty of references in the article, the bulk of them make no mention of the award and are to verify statements of facts, usually about the recipient of the award. What is missing in the huge number of references is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 2 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) 20:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jiggle the Handle

Jiggle the Handle (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 group. Can't find reliable third party references about them. Even news and general searches for them generally only return results about people breaking their toilets or not opening doors properly. No evidence of any notability. Seems to just be a self-promotional page as created by a user whose only edits were to this page. Canterbury Tail talk 17:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
   Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 18:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Non notable band. Another example of a non-notable band managing to stay here for far too long. This article has been sitting here since 2007. Anyways I looked them up and couldn't find anything besides unreliable sites like Facebook, Discogs and Amazon, as well as lot of trivial mentions and name checks. One of their albums has apparently gotten a review on Allmusic, but the page of the band itself is blank there. Allmusic is not a reliable source when the band's biography page is blank. So no reliable sources whatsoever imo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GhostDestroyer100. The band existed, but my search turned up nothing
  WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete yet another dust-collecting promo/fancruft article for some non-notable garage band. Dronebogus (talk) 02:22, 1 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) 20:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelieus6

Aurelieus6 (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 non-notable. All references are self published, some are literally sites specifically so people can promote themselves. This is pure publicity for a non-notable person. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Probably an attempted
  promotion, as the rapper is only visible in the usual streaming and social media sites where anyone can upload their own stuff. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete-
  Vanispamcruftisment. Reyk _YO! 14:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bonnie Tyler discography. Sandstein 06:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the Hits (Bonnie Tyler album)

All the Hits (Bonnie Tyler 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)

This compilation is not notable. The article merely offers a commentary on the track listing; it did not chart and there are no critical reviews or other related literature. Skyrack95 (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bonnie Tyler - no independent notability in the press established by the article. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bonnie Tyler discography. That's a better target than the musician's article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 2 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.

This Is Gonna Hurt (Bonnie Tyler song) (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 believe the article fails to meet the notability criteria as per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:NSONG. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Rocks and Honey: arely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]