Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 12 October 14 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of India (Tashkent group)

Communist Party of India (Tashkent group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article creation is based on the premise of one of the POVs on the early history of the Indian communist movement. When CPI began to fracture, dispute arose over the early history. CPI(M) maintains 1920 as the foundation date, CPI (post-split) maintains 1925 as foundation date. There has been plenty of debate on this, and it would be better to have an article on the early stages of party-building that reflects different perspectives. There are reasons to question 1920 as foundation date for CPI, but likewise one can question whether CPI as a party really began in 1925 as the movement continued to lack a functional central organization and program. (I began a draft at

Draft:Foundation of CPI trying to gather material for both of the main perspectives on the question of foundation of the party, but I lacked time to develop it properly so far) Soman (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Fenix down (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hamilton (footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:FPL say otherwise. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm seeing some coverage here. Definitely not 3 articles of significance satisfying GNG, but something that could be built on with more research. No harm in keeping open for another week to review
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two months User:RedPatchBoy? Probably sooner - he was loaned to Dundee to play. Reading deeper, he only got out of quarantine yesterday. Presumably not match fit after having been in Covid-transfer hell for eight months (and he almost notable for that!). I'd be very surprised if there isn't further Jamaican media coverage, I only looked very quickly. Nfitz (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said two months knowing nothing of the situation. When I saw 0(0) I didn't realize it was because the season hadn't started and the loan was recent. After I did some extra research and out new sources into the article, I realized itll probably be next game if not the one after that he makes the debut, just never went back to edit my original statement after that.
talk) 00:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep Changing my vote to keep. There are 5 unique independent sources in the article, he has extensive experience in the Jamaican top tier (not FPL), but will be making debut very soon (first league game is Oct 16 - he just left quarantine so he did not play) and as Nfitz noted his unique transfer saga due to covid could be notable on its own. He will likely debut in the next week or two. So Keep or Draft, but not delete.
talk) 12:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Neenah Menasha

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

Fails

WP:NSONG. Has been redirected twice to the obvious redirect target of Rotting Piñata, but the article creator has reverted both times, so there is no other option but to obtain a wider discussion. But there really doesn't appear to be any substantial discussion of this song. None of the sources verify that the song is named after two cities in Wisconsin, despite three of them being used as citations. The AllMusic entry is just a track listing, and most of the other sources are the usual user-generated databases. RiotFest isn't an RS, and the mention is a passing one in the context of the author urging readers to listen to the whole album. The Oakland Press also mentions the song only briefly in passing, and the claim in the Wikipedia article is misquoted – The Oakland Press doesn't say this was the track that impressed the record label, it says the sound of the band's songs such as this one impressed the label, which is a different thing. So there is nothing that makes this song stand out, and no in-depth reliable sources to create an article. Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added an additional reference to the song's page that is a more substantial discussion of the song. I also added a reference in regards to the the twin cities in Wisconsin, Neenah and Menasha, and moved the previous references to the correct sentence. The AllMusic entry is not just a "track listing", it has information regarding the song's release as a single along with a photo of the cover. Riot Fest has it's own Wikipedia page (since July 2012) and does appear to be an RS. In that article, the author urges readers to listen to the whole album but "particularly Neenah Menasha" as stated in the section's title, and then he describes details about the song's music video. I have also edited the sentence citing The Oakland Press and made it word-for-word with the source ("impressed with the big, full sound of tracks such as Neenah Menasha"). I would also like to point out that I've seen several pages for other comparable music singles on Wikipedia that don't cite any sources (or only one that is not an RS) that have been on Wikipedia for years. Regardless, I believe that the additional sources that I've added should suffice for it to be considered more substantial. -- T Yorke (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires that the song has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Nitpicking over "track listing" versus a track listing with a release date and a photo misses the point that neither represents significant coverage. AS for
other articles, these other articles may or may not meet the requirements to be a standalone article but we are not discussing them here. I've provided a more detailed analysis of the sources as of this version of the article. I still stand by my original opinions. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Source assessment table prepared by User:Whpq
Source Independent? Reliable?
Significant coverage?
 Count source toward
GNG
?
Riotfest
 Yes Riotfest is a music festival with no mention of editorial staff for its articles No The coverage of Neenah Menasha is a short blurb in a long list of songs ✘ No
Allmusic
 Yes Yes No Barebones database entry ✘ No
Discogs
 Yes No Crowdsourced content No Barebones database entry ✘ No
Fox Cities Magazine
 Yes Yes No No mention of the song in the article ✘ No
Innocent Bystanders
 Yes No It's a blog No Short blog entry with an even shorter amount about the song ✘ No
The Oakland Press
 Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
Musicstax
 Yes No indication how entries are created No Just another database entry ✘ No
IMDB
 Yes No User edited site No barebones database entry ✘ No
Youtube video
 No This is the band's video Yes No This isn't coverage about the song; it's the song itself ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Just to add to what Whpq says above, none of the sources added actually demonstrate that the song is notable – the link to AllMusic just proves it was a single, it has a track listing, and it has some cover art... that's not notable. The fact that RiotFest is famous enough to have an article doesn't mean it's considered reliable to be used as a source itself. The National Enquirer and InfoWars are well known enough to be written about, but they are not considered reliable enough to be used as sources for other articles – see
WP:DEPSOURCES. The only thing the RiotFest author says about the video anyway is "There’s a lot of cutoff shorts and some goofy Thom Yorke-lite gyrating going on". The only source you've added that actually states the song was named after two cities is from a blog, not an RS, and in any case, why would this make the song notable? This still doesn't pass any of the criteria at WP:NSONG. If there are other articles that are in a worse state than this one, then that's a better argument to delete those articles, not keep this one. Richard3120 (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Wodonga Council election

2020 Wodonga Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the same reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Yarra Ranges Shire election: Upcoming hyper-local election (the City of Wodonga is only a local government area, equivalent to a municipality), zero indication that it has had or will have significance outside the local area. WP:N demands "significant attention by the world at large", and there is no sourcing that indicates this particular election has gained any greater attention than the expected local coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Clear consensus, also same G11 concerns as prior AfD. Will apply NaCl StarM 01:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lido Learning

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

Fails

WP:NCORP. Previously deleted via G11. scope_creepTalk 21:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

(non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

George Denton Park

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

As proposed on

WP:GEOLAND states that there is no such thing as inherent notability for parks. I sense this one won't make it. Schwede66 20:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A long-term long-time Wellington City councillor was involved (before I came along) and so was the city historian. For me she asked the historian for precise land location info etc (it may in fact be part of Zealandia and the "park" is a consolation prize) and then there was Covid. I'll go back to the councillor now by email. If the decision is to delete this then the new info can go to Wellington's green belt article. They can name even their highest mountain and a strait after you (Cook) but never fear, they'll find a reason some day to change the name. Mutability, good name for a bit of verse. Eddaido (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. Non-notable park. MurielMary (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is some small amount of coverage, but there's nothing to indicate that it is anything more than local at best bar the odd other mention Fenix down (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol and Avon Association Football League

AfDs for this article:
Bristol and Avon Association Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct very low-level amateur English football league (article says it was the 20th level of the English football league system, which is debatable as the system is not officially defined that far down but nonetheless it was certainly very very low). This would have been a league contested primarily on public park pitches and the only coverage it would have received would have been cursory mentions on the inside pages of the local paper alongside the senior citizens' crown green bowls league. Article was nominated once before and kept, but the reasons offered seem very weak to me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was the third source listed in my comment. It's fairly in-depth and, if there were a couple more sources of that sort of calibre around, I'd happily change to a keep vote. Spiderone 11:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this article is really in-depth. It basically says that a local amateur sports league held its AGM and agreed its line-up for the next season - IMO it's a bit charitable to describe that as in-depth. My local paper gives similar coverage to the AGMs of the local Women's Institute and similar groups....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi Fitex

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

Possible UPE article on a politician who doesn’t satisfy

WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm unfamiliar with Nigeria topics and I don't know if he's notable, but I caught fake referencing where the provided reference had nothing to do with what it was trying to support.
WP:BLP requires proper sourcing with foot notes for claims about living people; as such I removed unsourced stuff from it. Graywalls (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Graywalls, thanks for that, it’s a tactic used to create a facade to make the subject look as though they were notable. Celestina007 (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article calls him a politician, but then fails to state what political roles he may have actually held — and even the sources just label him as a candidate for political office, not a person who has actually held one. But candidates don't get articles just for being candidates, the article says nothing about him that can even be measured against any other inclusion test to see if he has any other legitimate notability claims at all, and the sourcing is nowhere near adequate to claim that he would pass GNG regardless of whether he actually had a meaningful notability claim or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no indication this person has held any sort of significant political office. The most significant coverage in the references provided is a report about somebody damaging his fence and nothing to do with politics. -- Whpq (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not representing any elected office to pass
    WP:NPOL. - The9Man (Talk) 07:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinetic (comics)

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

entirely in universe, written by (declared) page editor. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep.

(non-admin closure)  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 07:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Ri (administrative division)

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

Unimproved and unreferenced article from more than 10 years, is a stub and needs expansion with text translated from the corresponding article in Korean Wikipedia. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 18:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Withdraw by nominator, transfer discussion to

(non-admin closure) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 19:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

IPhone 12 mini

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

Following the format of articles on variants of previous iPhone models, this article should be merged into iPhone 12. It's essentially the same exact phone, but smaller. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I support merging the articles. It contains practically the same hardware and has the same features, but at a different size. This follows the precedent set on the iPhone 6, 6s, 7, and 8, off the top of my head. It's not different enough to have its own article, in my opinion. Herbfur (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the format with the Pro's/Pro Max'es. I think the page is actually young enough you can get away with redirecting everything to iPhone 12 without anyone noticing. Admanny (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency. --17jiangz1 (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support given that this article departs from the commonly accepted practice of including variations of a particular generation of smartphone in a single article on that generation of smartphone. Jhw57 (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the nominator thinks that the article should be merged, not deleted, the nominator should go through the process of article merger, not article deletion. --Neo-Jay (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This would be best handled as an article merger, not a deletion. Herbfur (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator has begun merge proceedings instead. Time to close this discussion? Herbfur (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lasri condensation

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

User: Michael D. Turnbull PRODded as "Article is merely a special case of the standard way to make pyrazole — see that article's first reaction diagram" and with a pointer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Lasri condensation. But it had already been the PROD/dePROD process a few years ago, so here we are at AFD. DMacks (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect Changing my vote per the comments from Hbf878 and DMacks, and subsequent research. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 12:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. After somewhat extended time for discussion, there is clearly more numerical support for keeping rather than deleting (9 to 5, counting the nominator), but this support primarily seems to reference the volume of sources added as a case for meeting

WP:GNG, without identifying any number of sources providing substantial coverage of the subject. An argument is made that quantity is sufficient even in the absence of quality, but acknowledges that quality is better. There is, therefore, an absence of clear consensus that this article meets all criteria for inclusion, and the discussion is closed as no consensus. BD2412 T 18:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Casey Calvert (actress)

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

Last time this was discussed there was no consensus due to pornbio which the community has now depreceated. The sourcing is still primary and the article has not improved since the last discussion. Fails GNG, ENT and, as. a BLP deserves better

Spartaz Humbug! 17:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Morbidthoughts Consider adding the Vice and Rolling Stone citations to the article. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 13:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts and Ad Meliora: This is now  Done. Please compare before to after the research project with material from additional sources. Thank you for your research and helpful suggestions. Right cite (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a great job, Right cite Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts:, thank you, that means a lot! Right cite (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Revisiting the sources, I'd have to agree with
WP:RS have been cited, and at least three of those are very solid and substantial.— Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 12:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:INTERVIEW is referring to also. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The principle of
WP:RS makes them notable. But should we take every piece of information provided in the interview as fact? Of course not! — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 13:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I know. I mostly mentioned it in relation to trying to find something about interviews in an actual guideline instead of essay, and that's all I was able to find. I'm not saying it's uber related to this though. Really, I'm just surprised interviews are really only talked about in an essay. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Right cite (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
What was an aspersion (or aspersions) about that? The fact is notifying ARS about an AfD increases keep votes. Otherwise, there would be no reason anyone from ARS would alert each other. BTW, find it kind of odd how sensitive you ARS people are. Especially considering how many times you all make things personal. I never see you calling each other out for it either, but then rather benign comments like Spartaz always seems to trigger the castigating from you guys and the fake virtue signaling about how much you all care about civility (like Rite Cite's comment on you talk page), when most of you are extremely far from civil about things. FYI, I'm not perfect myself either, but then I'm not leaving messages on people's talk pages fawning over them "putting other people in their place" either or pretending that I'm (or the group I'm a member of is) gods gift to Wikipedia either. I look forward to you and Rite Cite telling ARS people to tone it down the next time one of them gets condecending in an AfD. I'm sure there have been a few over the last few weeks where neither of you said anything when it happened. Even though you supposedly so concerned about it. Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I highly doubt Rite Side would be this proficent and calculated at editing articles and doing other things if he was just a few week old editor, who's only seriously edited like 4 articles. It's something to think about. Adamant1 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your not assuming good faith is noted. Gleeanon 18:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a lack of AGF is a common, extremely trite way to handwave away legitimate comments and concerns. Its also worthless outside of using it for trite handwaving because it takes a lack of good faith to say someone else isn't assuming any. Personally, I'm not such a big fan of such passive agressive, mealy mouthed ways of responding to people. Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Gleeanon 19:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
Tsistunagiska, thank you! Right cite (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Both of your off topic, unasked for, and frankly wrong opinions about other people's behavior aside, out the 117 refences in the article can either one of you point to three in-depth ones that are not trivial, not primary, or not an interview? Because I can't seem to find any. I just looked through 60 of them and none of them were in-depth or met the GNG. 99% of them were just name drops or briefs mentions of awards she's won. In no way is an article with 117 references where half are name drops an "improvement on anything. Nor is citing four sources (especially those ones) per sentence, just to make an article seem notable an "improvement." In fact, the article is practically un-readable now. So, back up your keep vote and your off topic rambling by pointing to three sources that fit with what I said. If you can't, at least Right cite should be able since he's the one that added them and skip the excuses about my "tone." Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about it. Someone not bending over backwards to stroke your ego like a sycophant isn't an excuse to not answer legitimate, on topic questions anyway. Personally, I've dealt with Rite cite in a few AfDs now and I can 100% guarantee that the complaints about tone are a deflection tactic and that he considers anything that isn't along the lines of "your gods gift to Wikipedia" as a personal insult, or at least pretends that's the case. So, which three sources are in-depth? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Criticizing others' opinions as assumptions while oneself in the exact same comment, making assumptions about others' opinions, is, at the very least, contradictory. And behaving exactly how one is asking not to be treated by others. Right cite (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, you can't cite three in-depth sources that are in the article huh? I didn't think so. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
Tsistunagiska:, I think essentially what you are saying is that we should all try a little bit harder to practice the Golden Rule. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
–Adamant, you made your point and !voted. Others made theirs and !voted. Continuing to personally attack other editors on this discussion while then criticizing them for responding directly to your attacks is not beneficial to anyone. Let the process work itself out. Everyone can see the article because it's in mainspace. They can also make their own conclusions about the sources provided and any others they may find in doing a search. I debated responding to you because your tone proves to me that you are completely unreasonable at this point but for the sake of the nominating process and the discussion I felt the need to respond and call for civility once more from everyone. --
talk) 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Ignoring the rest of your comment and ignoring the fact that your the one that restarted things by needlessly taking pot shots at people on your vote when there was zero reason to, asking someone who votes keep based on the GNG which sources they feel meet it is pretty standard fare and there's nothing wrong with it. AfDs are discussion, period. The problem with people like you and Rite cite though is that simply asking what sources you based your vote on is "uncivil", "not letting the process play out" (as if that's we do on the first place), etc etc. Whereas, Rite cite can post as many off topic high fivish or whatever messages as he wants and you can restart arguements by making comments in your keep vote that have nothing to do with the article. Yet for some bizzare reason neither of those things dont get in the way of the process etc. etc. A small hint for you, anything not DIRECTLY related to the AfD gets in the way of the proccess playing out. Especially stiring the pot when its already settled. So, save it. Anyway, can you point to three in-depth sources in the article or not? Adamant1 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, any running "meta" comentary isn't constructive to the AfD. The fact that it's "polite" comentery on Rite Cite part (which is questionable) is completely irrelevant. Any time repeatedly acts in a none constructive way in AfDs like he has we have a right and obligation to tell them stop doing so. Me and other users have said his comments are not constructive. Which is what he considers "insulting." There's nothing civil on his part continue doing things people have asked him not to. Period. Sorry, but I have zero tolerance for it at this point. Adamant1 (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the stick. Gleeanon 16:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't
WP:LAWYER or I'll tell my mom on you ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs
)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anvar Boynazarov

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

Having fought at Glory Kick boxing championship and claims he has defeated a lot of notable champions, I don’t see any of those claims being supported by reliable sources. We can not just assume notability unless there are multiple, secondary, reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. Most sources in the article are just profiles which may not be independent. To those who may ivote Keep because from the article details the subject meets criteria in

WP:GNG first. Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 09:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 09:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Megan, it was his last fight! I added a source also.--.karellian-24 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm also not seeing significant independent coverage, just routine reporting of results. However, I know how hard it is to find good kickboxing sources here in the U.S. I'm inclined to defer to
    WP:NKICK Papaursa (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:NKICK, this subject doesn’t meet our notability guidelines. Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 07:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The last sentence of
WP:NKICK specifically refers to amateur kickboxers, which Boynazarov is not. It was put in because a number of articles were being written about people who won titles in amateur competitions but nothing else. Papaursa (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 03:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a credible news site which states: According to him, this show will feature a number of local world renowned fighters - Mahmud Muradov, Hasan Barotov, Furkat Yakubov, Mukhammadali Tashturghunov, Anvar Boynazarov. https://tashkenttimes.uz/sports/1169-jean-claude-van-damme-to-attend-asian-fight-2017-in-tashkent Australianblackbelt (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. As the only contributor to this discussion thread, and given another international topic that I nominated where I was only pulling up a few sources had some reliable media coverage in that country, I am going to withdraw my nomination. Instead, I will leave the {{

(non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The Sxplay

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

Although known for some of her songs in

WP:NPERSON: Could not find reliable sources on Bing or Google. Aasim (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit disappointed, even searching her name yields 2 results on Bing and a few trivial mentions on Google. While yes her music is high quality IMHO, it is nothing near notable. There is nothing on Billboard and a trivial entry on Genius. I do not think this qualifies as being a notable person. Aasim (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(The games that she has made music for are for the most part rhythm games with few mentions in mainstream media.) Aasim (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator and given how long this article has existed, I think there is a chance that this article may be notable and that my searches are coming up blank. I think, because this is a Japanese singer, that someone living in Japan do a search to attempt to turn up sources. I could not find anything, though. I used an InPrivate window and used a VPN to tunnel to Japan and still could not find anything. That really casts doubt on the notability question. Aasim (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Nadine Shah

Nadine Shah (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 uses social media sites and some other trivial mentions as references. I think these are not WP:RS. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 13. UserNumber (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Marlin

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

no evidence Marlin has received the required coverage to meet any inclusion criteria. What little there is, is brief, not in depth or a press release. Praxidicae (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Secondary School Kandamangalam

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

Article about a secondary school that does not meet

WP:N   // Timothy :: talk  15:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Rothman (musician)

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

non-notable person. fails NACTOR, appearing on a reality show doesn't even make one an actor but the rest of the stuff he's supposedly notable for...isn't. Sources are black hat/paid for spam or passing mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/
WP:N — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 19:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amnon Golan

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

The article is a puff piece that breached Wikipedia's policies on BLPs. Peacock terms are used often in the language, while being unsourced with little to no third-party information to be found on the person. There are no other mention of this person on the Y&R website, except for his own LinkedIn. Mr Borkman (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Agistri (song)

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

It appears that this was missed being listed at

WP:NSONG for the same reasons. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Vijay Sethupathi Productions

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

Couldn't find any independent reliable sources about this film production company. This is too soon. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). TamilMirchi (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to

34th Battalion Virginia Cavalry. ST47 (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Vincent A. Witcher

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

Meets neither

WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 TT me 13:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. We base the decision about whether to have standalone articles on our policies and guidelines; the two most prominent at AfD being our

Verifiability policy). They further suggest policy and guideline based reasons for why deleting this article is the appropriate outcome. Therefore when appropriately weighing discussion, there is a consensus to delete this article. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989

Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks

notability
. Unsourced (and tagged as such) since its creation 4 years ago. Looking for indepth sources about the actual subject gave no results.

This is a followup after the mass nom

Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
We can add the information above to the article, if you withdraw your deletion request. As for reputable source: The book about 50 years of Austria's Armed Forces published by the Landesverteidigungsakademie (Defense University, ISBN 3-902455-03-9) from page 671 to 697 looks at the "Strukturentwicklung des Bundesheeres von der „Wende“ 1989/90 bis zum Jahr 2003", choosing 1989/90 as one of the key years for the structural development of the Austrian Armed Forces. (Other years relevant 1962/63 Bundesheerreform, 1978 Raumverteidigung, 2003/04 Heeresreform). noclador (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "Landesverteidigungsakademie" is the military academy, an organisation of the Austrian Army. So by definition not an independent source at all.
Fram (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The first one is the brigade association ("Traditionsversband"), like the
Air Force Association; you will note the .at web address, the assertion of commercial copyright, and the photo of their annual presentation of financial statements at [26]. But yes the second one, you can see it in the publisher, was partially BMLVS and partially the Command/Headquarters 4 PzGr Brigade. But this was two minutes work, really; there will be more. I am proving the general point; if the original writer Noclador wishes to properly reference and provide text to this article, it will be his job to do so. If it remains in its present state it might have been satisfactory in 2005, but not any more. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I have no idea what general point you are proving, actually, except that there still are no independent reliable sources about the subject. I'ld rather see you take your time and provide these sources, than rush to present more and more unacceptable sources (for the sake of notability of the subject of this article, some of these sources can be used to verify stuff or to provide more general background).
Fram (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
What I am saying is the Traditionsverband of the 4th Brigade is an independent association, an independent source, like the trade union type thing that the
Air Force Association is - otherwise it would not be having a annual accounts meeting!! - it would be funded by the government!!, and so is the source from the newssite noen.at I have just added regarding the 3rd Brigade 60 Years of the 3rd Brigade. I have also just added a very detailed link regarding the structure of the Austrian Army; battalion types, in the German peace and security journal Sicherheit und Frieden in 1986, which was unchanged in 1989. We can source and verify the structure did not change (it was in Noclador's opening discussion of sources, which is now in the article under 'Bibliographic notes'). Once I work through the translations, the opening paragraph on unit types should be referenced. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The reason we are not expanding the article now, is that you made it very clear that no matter what sources we will add, you will never accept any of them. You reject all military or military affiliated sources, which makes it impossible to work on any military article. For every military article the best and most detailed sources are military history offices, military museums, military associations, military websites, etc. Most of i.e. the Italian side of the the Western Desert Campaign is referenced through publications of the Italian Army's History Office. The entire current US Army organization is sourced back to the US Army's website. Same goes for other armies, air forces, navies, coast guards, even police forces. As long as you insist to only use non-military sources we're at an impasse as i.e. sources from the time don't go into detail as that information was classified, and today's non-military sources (like newspapers) give only a rough overview as they are meant for the general public. The details we can get from books and publications by military or military affiliated organizations go into excellent detail. I.e. the Austrian Heeresgeschichtliches Museum in Vienna has a permanent exhibition about the Cold War and that includes a full organization listing. The Truppendienst magazine has run extensive articles on the Raumverteidigung concept and the associated organization (https://www.truppendienst.com/fileadmin/_processed_/b/9/csm_online_zonen_1979_archiv_lampersberger_f7a4429a2a.jpg including maps]). If you insist that we must bring only non-military affiliated sources as references for military articles, you prevent us from doing any work. If you would impose your personal view onto the Military History Project, the the project could not create a single detailed article. No military article would have details that go beyond what an average newspaper writes; but as in encyclopedia we should strive to provide as much information as possible. In short: your intransigence is preventing an improvement of the article. noclador (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless military articles which are based on non-primary, independent sources. This is because there are loads of reliable, independent books, magazines, ... about nearly every aspect of the military. Weapons, transport, battles, wars, ... get an unending stream of documentaries, books, etcetera about them. Perhaps dial back the hyperbole a bit instead of claiming that insisting on independent reliable sources (you know, the kind of sources we insist upon for every other article) somehow would make it "impossible to work on any military article".
Fram (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
"countless military articles", great! Show us. Be constructive and find articles about Austria's armed forces. If it's so easy as you say then I am sure you can spend a few minutes to list them for us Military History editors to work into the articles. While you're at it and since it's so easy, please also find articles about the current Hellenic Army organizations. And Turkish Army please too; but no-no to any military affiliated sites. Go, I am eager to include the sources you bring into the articles. noclador (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your non sequiturs are rather tiresome.
Fram (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Please keep it civil. noclador (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references provided so fails SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. I am not convinced that an order of battle serves any purposes without a battle and don't accept that 1989 is in any way significant, even as the end of the Cold War which Austria, as an ostensibly neutral and largely demilitarized country, was not part of. 1989 is no more significant than 1956 (Hungary), 1961 (Berlin), 1968 (Czechoslovakia) or 1981-4 (Pershing II). We don't need ORBATs of every European country at different points throughout the Cold War, they tell us nothing.Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"largely demilitarized country"?? Read my comment above. Austria's armed forces reached its peak in numbers and equipment between 1988/89. And at 284,000 men out of a population of 7.8 million was one of the most militarized nations in the world. noclador (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The terms of the Austrian State Treaty restricted the size and equipment of the Austrian armed forces, they didn't even have an effective jet fighters until 1988 or air to air missiles until 1993. While they may have had a sizable militia I don't think that makes them "one of the most militarized nations in the world". Mztourist (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
West Germany 2,100 troops/100k population under full mobilization, Italy 1,900 troops/100k population under full mobilization, Austria 3,640 troops/100k population under full mobilization, and that is at the reduced number of 200,000 militia. Your initial assertion of a "largely demilitarized country" was way of the mark. Also your comment on the dates "1956 (Hungary), 1961 (Berlin), 1968 (Czechoslovakia) or 1981-4 (Pershing II)" is choosing randomly events that were part of the larger Cold War. So, yes, 1956, 1961, 1968 are irrelevant, as those where events within the larger, global, epoch-defining Cold War, and that war ended in 1989/1990. noclador (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Troops/population - so what? The dates I gave are not random, but rather were the hottest points in the Cold War when conflict was most likely in Europe, but we don't have Orbats for those years and we don't need Orbats for 1989/90 just because the Cold War ended then. If you want to make a point that in 1989/90 Austria had X divisions and Y thousand troops, then go ahead and add that detail on the Austrian Armed Forces page, we don't need an Orbat for that, just some RS, which this page doesn't have.Mztourist (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We don't have Orbats for the years you mentioned, as it takes years to design, build, organize an army, navy, etc. We need an OrBat for 1989 as in that year the Cold War ended, which was a war of deterrence, deterrence by having massive standing armies on both sides. After 1989 these armies disappeared as part of the peace dividend. The organization of these armies is a relevant topic, that needs to be covered in wikipedia to understand the Cold War and how it was "fought". Adding troop numbers, as you suggest, just scratches the surface without giving the context to understand this war.
  2. When the Italian Military History Commission consisting of University of Milan, University of Bologna and Armed Forces History Office professors and officers published its history of "The Armed Forces and the Italian Nation" in 2005, they divided the project into three volumes 1861-1914 (founding to WWI), 1915-1943 (entry into WWI to disbanding of the armed forces in September 1943), 1944-1989 (refounding and to the end of the Cold War). As you can see, your personal opinion that 1989 wasn't an important year isn't shared by historians. noclador (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need Orbats to understand the end of the Cold War, they tell us nothing useful and certainly don't provide any context as you suggest. I really don't care what the Italian Military History Commission thinks unless they published an Orbat of the Austrian Army in 1989, which would at least give us an independent RS for this page.Mztourist (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not say "We do not need Orbats" if actually you mean to say "I don't need Orbats". For readers interested in the military history of their country military organizations are a valuable resource. For readers interested to understand the Cold War beyond the headlines, military organizations are a valuable resource. Wikipedia Military History Project editors work on them, because through them we can flesh out the military history of countries and provide a deeper understanding of the military thinking of the time. Your personal taste should not block other editors from expanding these informative articles. If we followed your suggestion then we would also not need Football World Cup game results, as it's only important to know, who won the final. The Cold War was a war of deterrence. The deterrence was large standing armies. Therefore the size, organization, and disposition of these large standing armies is valuable information that should be on wikipedia. As for your comment about the Italian Military History Commission: I showed you that 1989 is seen by historians as an era defining year, and you dismissed it with "I really don't care". Rude and bad faith answer. If you cannot accept facts that run counter to your initial argument "1989 is no more significant" than please refrain from being dismissive to other editors, who provide sources showing that 1989 was indeed a relevant year. noclador (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not say we need Orbats if you really mean to say
WP:CRUFT. Mztourist (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
When did the Berlin Wall fall? When did communism fall in Hungary? When did Havel become president of Czechoslovakia? When was the Romanian revolution? When was the Iron Curtain opened? When did Mazowiecki become Prime Minister of Poland? When was democracy restored in Hungary? When did the Bulgarian Central Committee return its power to parliament? Give me date. Then tell me about the East-West confrontation in Germany, the Fulda Gap, REFORGER, BAOR, 2ATAF, 4ATAF and V and VII Corps without checking up any of the military organization titles. noclador (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the Orbat of the Austrian armed forces in 1989 tells us what exactly about any of those events? Pure cruft. Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the
Fram (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Mztourist: "1989 is not important" - I show 1989 is important. Mztourist: "Military organizations are not important" - I show military organizations are important. Mztourist: "1989 is not important" - I show again that 1989 is important. Mztourist: "Military organizations are not important"... ad nauseam. Maybe you bring a source that states 1989 is not an important year? Btw. what does
WP:CRUFT. We should delete such articles. They don't do anything to help understand the Vietnam War. noclador (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:REVENGE and I will take you to ANI on that basis if you do). The differences are that they are referenced and things actually happened and so I have no doubt that notability is established and they would be kept.Mztourist (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Since you
Fram plan to delete every single military organization article related to the Cold War we're arguing here the merit of keeping them all. Re. Fulda Gap - now that you have learned what it is, how did the US plan to defend it? What were the disposition for the defense? Try to explain that without an resorting to military organization information. Same goes for Austria: where did the Warsaw Pact think to advance, what were the Austria defensive dispositions? Try to explain that without an going into detail about the Austrian armed forces organization and Raumverteidigung concept. noclador (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Please only ping me again if you have any reliable, independent sources about the structure of the Austrian army in 1989.
Fram (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Fram created. None of them seem notable, but as I believe wikipedia should include as much knowledge as possible I am not nominating articles for deletion. I will argue for expansion and more details whenever possible. As for the organization of Armed Forces of Europe during the Cold War - just to focus on Austria: the organization of the Austrian Armed Forces during the last decade of the Cold War, reaching is maximum strength in 1988/89 and the unique Raumverteidigung concept - those are already a 100 times more notable than Patrol Base Diamond III, which exist for a month and involved a few 100 troops, while Austria's armed forces Heer 78 organization existed between 1978 and 1990, involved half a million troops over time and shaped the Austrian nation. I do not know where you are from, but I will argue that this topic is highly relevant for Austrians and Austria's history; much more so than a four day limited aerial bombardment as Operation Proud Deep Alpha. If wikipedia is only about the American perspective then we're doing it wrong. The military organizations of European nations during the Cold War happened, they are as real as the articles you created, and they are notable - if not for Americans, then for the people of those nations. Also these articles are or can be sourced to military publications or government publications, however Fram has already repeatedly stated that he will reject all of them. The notability of military organizations is established, the year 1989 as notable is established, the lack of sources can be rectified. But first and foremost Fram's disruptive, ill-informed crusade to delete all military organizational articles needs to be stopped. noclador (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:DE. Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Fram you plan to delete all military organizations at the end of the Cold War and then you don't want to argue the merits of your actions. This is not how this works. You want to destroy content, and you don't want to hear counter arguments. You will be pinged every time there is an argument refuting your points. If you don't wish to hear these arguments, then withdraw your deletion request and desist form disrupting the military history project any further. noclador (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Congrats, you are now the first user ever where I have needed to use the "mute" function.
Fram (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment

Fram and Mztourist keep talking about "Order or Battle" and "OrBat" when in fact the article is about the structure/organization of the Austrian Armed Forces. One should know the difference between these terms before arguing for deletion of the organization of the Austrian Armed Forces, because one is "not convinced that an order of battle serves any purposes without a battle". noclador (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Noclador The first line of the page states "The order of battle of the Austrian Armed Forces..." You wrote that when you created the page in 2016. While Order of battle states: "In modern use, the order of battle of an armed force participating in a military operation or campaign shows the hierarchical organization, command structure, strength, disposition of personnel, and equipment of units and formations of the armed force." One should read before they write. Mztourist (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what Mztourist said. If we are not fit to argue for deletion of this page because we don't know the difference, then by definition you are not fit to write these pages. In fact, your infraction is then worse, because you are actively pushing this "error" into the encyclopedia, into the mainspace, where unsuspecting readers might be led to believe that the terms are used interchangeably.
Fram (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Fram Yes I wrote that intro four years ago when I created this article titled "Structure of the". Other editors have since pointed out that the preferred terms are "Organization" or "Structure", which I have been using since. Yesterday I saw my error in the intro and decided not to correct it, as it seemed incorrect to correct it now when criticizing you for using the term. I have learned over time and so should you two too. noclador (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
... which you could easily have said without adding the "One should know the difference between these terms before arguing for deletion " bit of course. It is not only false (the distinction between a structure or an order of battle has nothing to do with the actual deletion nomination), but rather disingenuous when not knowing this didn't stop you from creating the article with the wrong text (and letting it in place for all these years) in the first place.
Fram (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Fram is absolutely right, you are being disingenuous and are in no position to criticize us. Mztourist (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I used the term in response to your use of it, then after two lines switched back to organization. Trying to talk to you in your terms. noclador (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find that credible. I suggest that you
WP:DTS and let the deletion process play out. Mztourist (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Certainly not. noclador (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article clearly needs sourcing, but the topic is notable, 1989 is an important year in the Cold War and the information is relevant to military history. AfD is not a place for cleanup.   // Timothy :: talk  19:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It been many years since I made an edited on wikipedia noclador hopefully you remember me I always enjoy reading your articles. What brought me back here was that I began to notice alot these orbat are having there information removed and it led me to here. Now to answer why I support keeping this article I believe it is a good historical piece, it provides a snapshot of what the organization look like back in 1989. You can argue that this article doesn't need to be here as nothing significant happen to Austria in 1989 but it give people like me a good insight to what organization was back then to what it is now. 1989 happen 31 years ago and it is only going to become a more distant past as time rolls on. If we delete this article now all that information would be lost to history, think of the value it would provide to people 100 years from now. They know about this information because we preserved it, that is the gift of Wikipedia. Unless dealing with hard drive space I say keep this article Corpusfury (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Corpusfury as you are an inactive user who has not participated in an AFD before please review [[27]] and provide policy based arguments why the page should be kept. regards Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated before this article is of historical value but if you want me to state a policy. Then this article fall within the notability guideline meaning "addresses the topic directly and in detail" Corpusfury (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Clifton College (Botswana)

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

This high school does not seem notable as the article lacks multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources about it and I was unable to find any in a

WP:NORG. Which the article doesn't do. Also, it's written like an advertisement, would probably be less then a stub if it wasn't, and has mainly been edited by a SPA. As an alternative to straight deletion maybe it could be redirected to Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa or some other place per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Finance Companies in Jaipur

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

Wikipedia is

notable topic for a list, and neither are most articles of the form "Companies of type X operating in place Y"----Pontificalibus 12:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 12:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 12:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 12:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 12:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

NBAP

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

This seems to fail

WP:GNG and my BEFORE fails to find anything but few passing mentions. A PROD was declined with a suggestion to redirect, but I can't figure out which article would be best. Feel free to suggest a redirect target, but in the current state, this needs to go (or be improved, if anyone can find sources & time to invest in this). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Radio_Network_Controller#Protocols, where it is briefly discussed and showing its place in the context of other cellular telecommunications standards. The source cited in the article is a 3GPP standard first created in 1999 and updated until the present. International standards like this are reliable sources because they have been vetted by many contributors. It is also covered in books, such as in a chapter in a UMTS textbook and a page of description in the book Introduction to 3G Mobile Communications. These two books seem enough coverage to pass notability threshold, so I'd be fine with a 'keep' as well. The current state of the article is somewhat elliptical, so it may be better for our readers to redirect to another article where the protocol is briefly discussed and is placed in context. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Jesse Lee Peterson

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

Recommend deleting this article for not meeting notability guidelines. The vast majority of the sources in this article refer to primary sources such as from the subjects own website, books. Other sources are YouTube videos which are not appropriate sources for bio of a living person. FeWorld (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FeWorld (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really, really isn't. See
WP:NBIO. Grayfell (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Axel Andorff

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

Puff piece. Fails

WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable insider. scope_creepTalk 11:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeep Wagoneer (DT)

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

WP:TOOSOON. Too much speculation at this point. Vossanova o< 13:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Grand Wagoneer article for the time being. Looking at the web in general its looking like an announcement is bound to be made shortly. Nightfury 15:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I gather, the Grand Wagoneer will be a more-luxurious and/or extended-length variant of a regular Wagoneer, so in the long term, the article title should not include "Grand". That said, the Grand Wagoneer article is the slightly less bad one, and the title most readers would be looking for at present since that's the one getting all the press. It also appears that the "WS" platform code is the correct one, not "DT" as this article states, so this title shouldn't exist regardless. I'm leaning Delete for this page as a result; when more information is available, the situation can be reassessed. --Sable232 (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hanumanthegowda

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

Couldn't find reliable sources in English and Kannada in

WP:Before. There are no reliable sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
User talk:NinadMysuru
) 7:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
There are many articles related to film personalities having only IMDB.com as their source. In this article, there are many sources are added. Kinldy check all those.
User talk:NinadMysuru
) 10:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC
@
nominate it for deletion! Always look towards the betterment of Wikipedia. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 04:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think that this should be deleted. This actor is active in films for the past 20 years and a notable one among Kannada audience. 8 sources are added to the article, cant we pick atleast one among them as source??
User talk:NinadMysuru) 22:30, 05 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
User talk:NinadMysuru) 14:33, 06 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
This article is worth one to be in Wikipedia. The actor is a well known actor in Kannada cinema. After studying the sources in the article, I voice my opinion here that the article is much better than the many existing cine articles on Wikipedia. It's good to keep the article alive and not to delete it. Regards. User: Dgiboti 8:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this page. It is not violating any norms of Wiki. The way of writing is very near to neutrality which is very important. It has reliable source too. So, deletion is not correct and would be so discouraging. User:AjaykumarAdhisha, 6:04, 18 October 2020.
Filmibeat. Moviebuff, Maskmanreviews, Nettv4u, Viggy, Nowrunning, and Kannadabignews are all unreliable sources. The other sources in the article are not mainly about him.TamilMirchi (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined for deletion: No major roles, no awards, no significant coverage in reliable sources. see
talk) 20:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Transwiki. But just a note, Mccapra and/or Foxnpichu, it will have to be done manually, as no one runs the Wiktionary transwiki bot any more. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabīja

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

Dictionary definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Materialscientist (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Amer

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

Unsourced, and not mentioned in the long-established article for the victorious commander Shah Alam II. Was PRODded, then dePRODded without any explanation (by an editor with 6 edits to their name, created yesterday). It is possible that we already have an article on this major battle under a different title, in which case this needs to be redirected. It is also possible that it never took place. PamD 09:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. PamD 09:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. PamD 09:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PamD 09:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as
    WP:HOAX based on assertions in the infobox. "Mughal Empire Make a Independent Kingdom": The Mughal Empire's heyday was in the 17th century, and by 1761, the claimed year of this battle, it had long been in decline. "Maratha Empire Not Attack on Delhi After this Battle": It seems the Maratha Empire retook Delhi in 1771, after 1761. "Ahmad Shah Abdali Successfuly Won Multan": Per Multan, Abdali (a.k.a Ahmad Shah Durrani) took Multan in 1752 and retook it from the Marathas in 1760, not 1761. Besides that, it seems strange that the Amer article would mention nothing in its history section about an eponymous battle. Largoplazo (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
OTOH looking at the infobox it is clearly bogus. But impressive they got the Shah's location for that date so close. -- GreenC 23:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They originally copy-pasted material from Third Battle of Panipat which was a large and important battle in 1761, but in January. Looking increasingly like a hoax, copied content from another famous battle and given a fictitious name and date. -- GreenC 17:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anu Anand

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

Fails

WP:RS. Also, seems to be created by a user who only came here to create this page. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. K. Adarsh

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

Fails

WP:V

Palmsandbeaches (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Bruce Day

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

Fails

WP:BAND, couldn't find reliable sources that show he has enough notability outside of the band he played in for his own article. Suonii180 (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Graham Short

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

considerable publicity, but no major works, no works in museums, no significant critical studies of his work . Just PR DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trishana Gurung

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

Lack of reliable sources. I did't find any media coverage about the article's subject which can establish notability. --Gazal world (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and 21m views on this song of her [[37]]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.205.50 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as The Khatmundu Post linked in this discussion by Haminoon, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The sources currently cited in the article demonstrate notability under both the broad principles of
    WP:MUSICBIO. The Khatmundu Post and My City are both clearly reliable sources that are independent of the subject—and there is non-trivial coverage in each.[1][2] By the same token, she satisfies criterion one of MUSICBIO, as she is "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." In answer to ~dom Kaos~, neither of the aforementioned sources are press releases, and nowhere does it say that interviews are not both "non-trivial" and "independent" (be careful not to confuse publication of an interview in an independent publication with the unrelated warning against "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" in MUSICBIO). I'm not convinced this is even an edge case—the article may suck, but the subject is notable. —Kilopylae (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "A tale of two singers". kathmandupost.com. Retrieved 2020-10-06.
  2. ^ Lama, Sonam. "5 things about Trishna Gurung". My City. Retrieved 2020-10-06.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bret Weinstein. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of Unity

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

Non-notable political stunt is poorly-sourced and fails

talk 05:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mashkiran Jo Goth

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

Non-notable TV series. JavaHurricane 05:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont delete this article help me for improve it Kaleem Bhatti Talk 10:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per

WP:A7, "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". North America1000 07:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Rafi Radityo Daniswara

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

Non-notable person. JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 05:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remillard, California

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

A railroad facility on the Southern Pacific RR, serving the Remillard brick works. Not a community, it was an industrial rail station. No other indications that it meets basic threshold for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 05:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Paul H.: I'm just curious, where did you look for evidence? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute says "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." I've seen a number of comments from you in AfDs that are all fairly generic and don't indicate where you looked. Mainly I'd like to know where other people have looked for evidence so that I can look in other places. Thanks. Cxbrx (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, my sources are mainly JSTOR, Goggle Scholar, USGS historic topographic maps, Ebsco History Reference Center, and Proquest- History Vault. Being faculty has its nontransferable advantages. As far as sounding "generic," there are not many different ways a person can say that they looked for and found nothing indicating that an entity meets the basic threshold for notability. To pass
WP:GNG
.
Thanks, it is a big help to me to know where you looked. I know what you mean about nontransferable advantages, I was staff at a university for many years so I had library access. Fortunately, my local public library offers free access to a few Ebsco and Proquest resources. Cxbrx (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No post office. Searching newspapers.com for '"Remillard Station" in California' and 'Remillard Stanley Bernal in California' yielded nothing of note. Searching Google Books for '"Remillard Station"' yielded a citation for "Alameda County Place Names" which I added to the article (GNIS also cites this book). Searching Google Books for "Remillard Alameda" found some trivial mentions of the station. Google Books, points out Baker (1914), "Past and Present of Alameda County, California," which yielded nothing. Cxbrx (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comments The 1953-1969 1:24,000 scale USGS historic maps show a well-developed, presumaby industrial railroad siding network and associated buildings at the location specified for Remillard, California. The 1943 1:62,500 scale USGS historic map also shows same railroad facility and indicates that it was named Remillard. The buildings are missing on later maps and the asociated track network disappear soon after 1969. These maps are consitent with the finding of the nom.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

(non-admin closure) ansh.666 05:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Islamic terrorism in Europe

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

Editor TompaDompa has sugggested the article be deleted by merging its content to Islamic terrorism#Europe, List of Islamist terrorist attacks and List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks A Thousand Words (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know the difference between a speedy and procedural close. Either way, it's obvious that noone (inc the proposer) actually wants to delete!Pincrete (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD helps to decide on whether the article should remain as a standalone article. TompaDompa has argued that the subject does not warrant a
WP:STANDALONE article by suggesting that all of its contents be merged to other articles. A Thousand Words (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Per
WP:XFD: If you wish to merge articles, do not use a deletion discussion, but instead discuss it on the talk page. (I suspect this is why it's WP:Articles for deletion but WP:Redirects for discussion, WP:Templates for discussion, and WP:Categories for discussion). This is the wrong venue for a discussion about merging. TompaDompa (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VfB Stuttgart kits

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

WP:NOTGALLERY. Discussed before in 2018 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Ajax kit history), and furthermore in 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Bradford City kits). As the result, there are several pages like this in Commons, either made by me or not. This page belongs there. Flix11 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Flix11 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humane Society of Huron Valley

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

Not notable and doesn't meet

WP:BEFORE search finds a few recent news articles offering assistance to people during COVID-19 or covering this or that rescue of a particular neglect or abuse incident (all routine animal shelter stuff), but there is no real "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to satisfy NCORP. Normal Op (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as per nom. There are thousands of animal shelters around the world doing excellent jobs; this one is no different. William Harris (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am finding significant and ongoing coverage for this organization that was formed in 1896 including an NBC Today Show citation. I have added some of these citations and deleted some text that is not needed as well as changed one header and added another and deleted text for neutral tone issues. This article should be kept for its notability and more citations could be added to improve the article. BrikDuk (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence for being any more notable than any other animal rescue organization. Also, the article reads as being very promotional (addresses given in text, etc.).--SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Most of the coverage is either not independent, or is hyper-local. The exceptions are the TODAY piece, which provides no encyclopedic information about the topic in that it only mentions where the cats originated, the Michigan Radio piece, which only states that the topic wants to halt a deer cull, and provides no other information about the topic, and MLive, which I believe counts toward GNG but that is only one source with reliable, significant, independent coverage of the topic. The only other possible source I found was [40], and although I would normally consider something appearing in the Detroit Free Press to count towards GNG, this particular piece appears in a "local" section, which was not distributed to all subscribers. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

(non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Gail Leery

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

Does the mother of the main character really need her own page when other actual main characters on the show don't have ones of their own (Pacey/Jen)? Donaldd23 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EAC European Automobile Clubs

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

Fails

the notability guideline for organizations. All references but one are from the organization's own website; the exception no longer exists but from the context it would appear to have merely appeared in a list of similar organizations. A search turned up no other reliable sources to establish notability. Sable232 (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sable232 (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit (blether) 14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Greatland

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

Fails

WP:TOOSOON at this point in time. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The only views expressed are the nominator's delete rationale, and Charmk's 'weak keep'; I don't read a consensus either way. GirthSummit (blether) 14:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banthi Poola Janaki

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

Couldn't find reliable sources and reviews for this film. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 04:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. In the absence of a response from the article's author to a request for sources, I am forced to discount their !vote somewhat, so in light of Charmk's assessment, I see a consensus to delete. GirthSummit (blether) 14:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erum Azam

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

fails to meet basic GNG as well relevant WP:NACTOR. cited sources are not reliable enough. I don't see she has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Saqib (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she is known for role in Muqabil drama and Bad guman, Rasm E Duniya with Sami khan, Bilal Abbas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs)
Citation please? --Saqib (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 04:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She played roles in notable movies, but I checked all of the references in the article (22 references) and nothing provides significant coverage, all of them are are just passing mentions. The actor is not notable, so the article topic fail
    WP:GNG. Charmk (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.

No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 08:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Anumta Qureshi

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

fails to meet basic GNG as well relevant WP:NACTOR. cited sources are not reliable enough. I don't see she has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Saqib (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she is known for roles in Bharsoa Pyar Tera, Mera Rab Waris and she is known for her role in Suno Chanda series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs)
Citation please? --Saqib (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 04:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. GirthSummit (blether) 14:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tigurats

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

Subject does not appear in any sources in Google Scholar or Google Books; ትጉራት only has four hits on Google, the other three of which appear to reflect content from this page Pathawi (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, i note that the article has around 30 references, it would be helpful if the nominator could let us know why/how they do not contribute to the subject's wikinotableness? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gladly. Mostly, these are good sources… but they are not sources about the term Tigurat. I have not been able to access all of them, but I have been able to access most, & not one of these mentions the term in question. Even the one source in Tigrinya does not mention Tigurat people, but instead talks about the Tigrinya language and the Tigray people. The author of most of this article has taken sources about Eritrean Tigrinya-speakers & sources about Tigre-speakers, & then brought them together to speak about the two together as if they were branches of one ethnic group distinct from Ethiopian Tigrinya-speakers. There's language-historical justification for the first part of this: Tigrinya & Tigre are the two living North Ethiopic Semitic languages—it seems normal to want to think of them together in some way. However, the sources presented do not provide justification for treating them as halves of a meta-ethnic whole, nor for imagining a meta-ethnic identity that ends at modern state borders, nor for recognising Tigurat itself as a notable term. While I have not been able to access all of the sources, four things lead me to believe that the remaining half dozen or so will not provide justification for Tigurat's notability:
      1. The use of the other twenty-something sources to make claims about Tigurat people when these sources are in fact about smaller ethnic groups & do not employ this meta-ethnic identifier.
      2. The fact that these usages do not generally support claims about Tigurat people specifically in the article, but are instead about the history of Eritrea in general or specifically about Tigrinya-speakers or Tigre-speakers—for which they're (in most cases) apparently reliable sources, but these uses do not support the notability (or reality) of the overall topic.
      3. The absence of any sources in Google Scholar or Google Books for the English term Tigurat with this meaning†.
      4. The absence of any sources in Google at all for the Tigrinya term ትጉራት other than three mirrors of this article.
I suspect that we're looking at propaganda intended to help establish a meta-ethnic identity. This may be well-intentioned, but it does not appear to reflect actual usage in the sources presented.
† There are a few hits for "tigurat", but all such cases appear to be erroneous OCR representations of other words. Pathawi (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, so as well as this article being non-notable, there may be the issues of
WP:OR here? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The former seems clear to me; the latter looks probable from the comments of the main author, Mesfun Ghebregergis, on the Talk page last year. (Mesfun Ghebregergis claims that written references exist in Tigrinya/Tigrigna [& makes a political distinction between these spellings—I'm not trying to weigh in one way or another], but does not actually provide these references. As noted above, the term does not appear in the sole Tigri(g)n(y)a source cited.) Pathawi (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The creator & principal author of the page has weighed in on the Talk page, & consented to page deletion. I know that's not the process, but I thought it was noteworthy & might not show up in this conversation.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we can’t keep an article without proper sourcing. Like the nominator I’ve looked at all the current sources which are accessible and see no mention of the term ‘Tigurat,’ while a search for the term online produces only very recent items that appear to be mirrors of this article. The article creator has a theory or belief but I don’t see any RIS to support it. I don’t read any East African languages so can’t search in them. Mccapra (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Simon Prize for Philanthropic Leadership

William E. Simon Prize for Philanthropic Leadership (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 is nothing to indicate that there is any notable about this prize. The only sources are links to the organization that hands these prizes out. A brief mention on the page of the organization that hands these prizes out is sufficient.

talk) 18:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The prize sum is considerable and the recipients are all notable, all but one having their own Wikipedia article. There is no need to delete this page. I have added the recipients of the last three years. Eissink (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete no evidence that this organization (it is effectively about the activities of an organization, William E. Simon Foundation) meets NCORP. Possibly a redirect or selective merge could be done. (t · c) buidhe 13:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed, wrong forum. Please feel free to nominate this at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Train of one gauge loaded onto train of another gauge

File:Train of one gauge loaded onto train of another gauge.gif (edit | [[Talk:File:Train of one gauge loaded onto train of another gauge.gif|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a page created by an inexperienced user (their first contribution) who has no idea of "fair use" criteria or the meaning of Description requirements. Clearly it qualifies for "no fair use rationale". However, irrespective of that, this file can be speedily deleted because I have uploaded a CC BY 4.0 licensed version to Wikimedia Commons. Please see the Talk page for further details.

I have notified the author. SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬  at 08:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ignacio, California. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fairford, California

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

More obscure than most. Not listed in the GNIS database. Durham said it was a short-lived post office (less than a year in 1879) located at the Pacheco railroad station on the Northwestern Pacific RR. Everything I can find online appears to draw from this incorrect Wikipedia article. As has been pointed out many times before, the presence of a post office is not a guarantee of a community. Clearly not a community and not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. has been relisted multiple times with little additional input Eddie891 Talk Work 01:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dada's Aphrodisiac

Dr. Dada's Aphrodisiac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searched under Dr. Dada's Love Dope and Dr. Dada's Aphrodisiac. There isn't even an IMDB entry and couldn't find any of the actors or director on IMDB. Sources in the article are a movie poster and a database entry from a Japanese website.   // Timothy :: talk  17:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  17:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  17:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. GirthSummit (blether) 17:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gate Petroleum

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

This article looks promotional in return of undisclosed payments and violates the Wikipedia terms of use. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 16:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The article has been altered to show it as an extinct community, and discussion seems to have petered out; I can't read consensus on the issue, but I don't see any benefit to relisting it for a third time. GirthSummit (blether) 14:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flag, Missouri

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

Non-notable GNIS error. The State Historical Society calls it a post office and possibly a

WP:GEOLAND - That it was legally recognized as a community. A post office and a school don't necessarily indicate it, especially since we can't prove they were even at the same place (GNIS has no coords for the school). Hog Farm Bacon 03:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my post on Sagrada: there's no reason why a suitably-motivated person wouldn't be capable of finding out more about the place, the GNIS entry and historical records pretty reliably establish that the place does/did exist, obviously not a hoax or contentious in any way -- nobody's going to get misled by this article existing. At absolute worst, I'd say to merge it into the page for the county it's from. Moreover, I don't think Google Maps is a reliable source on historical information about places that did/didn't exist if they're small enough... jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it would probably have been better to
BUNDLE these nominations, since they all proceed from the same general premises, and arguments that are valid for one will be valid similarly for the others. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. weak keep is still a keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sagrada, Missouri

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

State Historical Society calls it a post office. This old source implies that there was a store there, but the pre-GNIS small-scale topos either don't show Sagrada or only show one or two buildings there. An old Mormon church source refers to Sagrada as just a post office. References to a Sagrada Ferry on the river are likely to a nearby, but distinct place, as this Sagrada appears to be a bit off the river. A church camp with the name Sagrada is in the next county over, but appears to be unrelated. Based on the sum of the evidence, I'd say this is just a

WP:GEOLAND-failing post office. Hog Farm Bacon 03:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it's a stub, but there's no reason why a suitably-motivated person wouldn't be capable of finding out more about the place. I think the one source from the book, the GNIS entry, the existence of the post office and the historical society publication are more than enough to establish that there is in fact an unincorporated community named Sagrada in that county. It's obviously not a hoax or contentious in any way -- nobody's going to get misled by this article existing. At absolute worst, I'd say to merge it into Camden County, Missouri. jp×g 05:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Tons of references to Sagrada in the archives of the Camdenton Reveille.[49]. Perhaps I should make this general observation about those researching rural American geography stubs, as I've seen lots of AFDs on small American places in different states in recent months. Many rural parts of the United States were more populated a century ago than they are today. As farms were much smaller 100 years ago, rural communities, with active schools, churches, etc., were more common. They were communities more than they were towns. Camden County's population in 1900 was over 13,000, and fell below 8,000 by 1950 - a 40% drop. The growth of the Lake of the Ozarks area explains the modern growth in that county (now over 45,000). In other words, these parts of America look very different than in the late 19th century. The lack of recent references to these communities or lack of obvious ruins on Google maps doesn't mean they didn't exist. Communities everywhere in rural America are largely gone and faded to whispers. Just as mounds of sand today in Iraq were once villages (albeit 4100 years ago, not 100 years ago). Thus, I find looking for local newspaper archives in rural America to be very useful in determining whether a place was really a community. Sure, there are places being found in these AFDs sometimes that were simply a single house, but I wouldn't over-assume that GNIS entries are misguided! Thanks to all who work on these articles!--Milowent • hasspoken 13:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with looking at a newspaper like this is that the heading "Sagrada" does nothing more than establish a locale. I grew up in Howard County, Maryland, in an early subdivision there, and the Howard County Times would have news stories which referenced that subdivision, and at times even had sections of local news about it and others; it even has its own schools. But there's no way it's notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a subdivision. I can't speak for the endless subdivisions of Columbia, even though they do have their own articles, e.g., Wilde Lake, Columbia, Maryland, and those are not real "villages". Though I am clearly just messing around right now in Olga, Arizona, which is not notable, I do think this was an actually known rural community and is notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No real consensus has emerged after over a month of discussion. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rowland, Missouri

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

State Historical Society calls it a "little trading point" with a post office; trading point seems to indicate a country store based on some of the other entries. Doesn't appear on any of the small-scale pre-GNIS topos. Google books is mostly bringing up people with the last name Rowland, particularly this one guy who was described as if he were the Nimrod of Missouri. Not seeing any indication of an actual legally recognized community here. Google maps leads me to an isolated farm. Hog Farm Bacon 03:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my post on Sagrada: there's no reason why a suitably-motivated person wouldn't be capable of finding out more about the place, the GNIS entry and historical records pretty reliably establish that the place does/did exist, obviously not a hoax or contentious in any way -- nobody's going to get misled by this article existing. At absolute worst, I'd say to merge it into the page for the county it's from. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it would probably have been better to
BUNDLE these nominations, since they all proceed from the same general premises, and arguments that are valid for one will be valid similarly for the others. jp×g 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 00:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_October_13&oldid=985557562"