Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Friskillo

John Friskillo (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 victim of a routine crime. The only continuing coverage is that one of the criminals, out on parole, committed a similar crime. That does not make the original victim notable DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep John Friskillo is mentioned as a radio icon in a few sources, so he is notable at least in Mississippi which is why the crime reported by various outlets.--Twixister (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This nomination appears twice in today’s feed. Mccapra (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Repaired.
  t • c) 06:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Radio personalities aren't all automatically notable just because they exist, so the fact that the death coverage mentions that he used to be a radio host is not in and of itself a mic drop in the absence of any notability-making career coverage while he was alive and working in radio — but the sources which actually predate his death are all either unreliable sources (Fold3, the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations) or glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that are not about him in any substantive or non-trivial way. In determining whether somebody is notable as a radio host or not, we're not looking for short blurbs which technically verify facts — we're looking for sources that write about and analyze the significance of his work in detail, and no sources like that have been shown. If the strongest source you can actually show is a 20-word blurb in Billboard's "broadcasting employment notes" column, mentioning that he was program director of a radio station but not going into any further detail about that, then that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from his death, an indication of
  WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Lawler

David Lawler (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

• Delete per my nom. I just wanted to add to my nomination that Mr. Lawler's current position as head of a BP subsidiary does not in and of itself justify an article, under our notability guidelines. I looked diligently for such a provision without success. If I am wrong, kindly advise and I will happily withdraw this nomination. A review of other CEO AfDs fails to see any such guideline cited. Maybe we should have one (I would not be in favor), but we don't. It also bears mentioning that BP America, which he heads, does not have a standalone article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable engineer and businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The CEO of BP has a BLP, but Lawler is the president of BLP America. There aren't many sources, and they don't say much. I can't find any independent RS (there may be one in the article but I can't read it). I thought Arturo at BP had agreed to stop writing drafts for BP, and to make suggestions on talk instead, but perhaps I misunderstood. The problem with his drafting BP bios is that he and/or his colleagues have helped to create the sources, most of which (all but one) appear to be based on BP press releases. If that is correct, this article would be BP's creation in just about every sense. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I worked at the BP article as well and was quite surprised to see that Arturo had submitted this article. As I said on my WP editor page years ago, one of my major concerns is that corporate America would find a way to weasel into controlling their WP articles. Best to not set a president here. Gandydancer (talk) 18:04, 11 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 19:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of time and places in cases of Sherlock Holmes

List of time and places in cases of Sherlock Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Listcruft and fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 18:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ~EdGl talk 18:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as
  WP:OR. According to this article, there are no less than 17 competing chronological lists of the stories. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Elementary my dear EdGl. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I had a chuckle at this; made my morning! ~EdGl talk 13:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:TRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete clear trivia. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per nom.ّ, I am not sure if the topic has any uses. Alex-h (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE this is fancruft at its cruftiest. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:26, 12 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.

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

)

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

I'm struggling to find any independent, reliable coverage for this organisation. Its notability seems to be confined to its involvement in a copyright infringement lawsuit, as described at

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Arista Records, LLC v. Launch Media, Inc. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:10, 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. Sandstein 07:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Police Academy

Kerala Police Academy (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 indication of notability for this police training school. No 3rd party sources DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
  talk) 00:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Related discussions: 2014-03 Kerala Police Football Academy ✗ delete

• Note to closer: not soft delete eligible --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable academy. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:15, 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.

Justin Ross Lee

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

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

pr for non notable career. Even though I would inrterpret much of what is said as negative from my POV, given the titles of the person's books, he thinks its good self-advertisement. Asf or the refs, NOT TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If we create an article because someone flew first class with Ashley Olsen, then I think we become one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Christopher Bauer

Daniel Christopher Bauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional page for an individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails to satisfy

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Promotional rubbish. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a clearly overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Call Disney

Flora Call Disney (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 inherited. If she was a major influence on Walt Disney's work, we need 3rd party sources saying so DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just being the mother of a notable person does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:GNG no in-depth coverage and reads like a family history project. Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. There is consensus in favour of deleting this article at this time for failing to meet notability guidelines. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Holloway (actor)

James Holloway (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

minor actor , according to the article itself , his 2 best known roles -- are a unnamed minor character in a series , and a partially named, but exceedingly minor character in another.. The refs are PR or mere notices, like the NY Times DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete roles as minor as his do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The arguments from DGG, Johnpacklambert, and Shellwood are prejudice opinion and come from people who are not professionals in the field of the article's representation. There are substantial references listed for the article. If any of them are not of full credibility, challenge those and/or remove them. Look at the entire article and not just the first two sentences (which have been adjusted/modified). Let's make the page better, like the other peaceful community members have started to do. Judging from DGG's record, he is best known for nominating articles that are more than suitable for inclusion for deletion. Lastly, pages build overtime and this page has significant credibility to continue existing in its current without further interruption. comment added by 0705csd (talk • contribs) 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the opinion of the article's creator, the deletion rationale is sound and well-founded. Subject does not meet
  fact checking." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Just on its own the article makes no realistic attempt to demonstrate notability, the refs are lightweight and mostly interview based and give a good impression of being based on press releases. It signally fails
  WP:GNG. What concerns me more is the strangely familiar text of the article's defence above by its SPA author. Is somebody being paid here ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Andrew Johnson (film producer)

Andrew Johnson (film producer) (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Burke (lawyer)

Joseph Burke (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

lawyer, with nothing notable about them, except one reference to participation in a peripheral matter of a major case, No other 3rd part Reliable sources for notability. I tried to draftify, but was reverted by the contibutor. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable not yet elected candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has been published about more than twice in widely distrubted newspapers in Australia.TruthInfects (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable lawyer doing his job; no coverage other than that routinely expected of a lawyer representing a party whose case is in the news. That news coverage might suggest that the cases themselves are notable, but that possible notability is not contagious to the attorney.
  WP:NOTINHERITED. TJRC (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom. Also 4th reference is usless as article is hidden behind paywall. Teraplane (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

)

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

I start this discussion has the one that created the article in the first place following evidence that “Community preference” isn’t actually A principle or a legal requirement within the European Union. Now I neither support deletion or support further expand in the article however we need more information regarding community preference to see whether it is viable for it to have its own article or not. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment Discussion page was created without the {{
  WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 16:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @MOTORAL1987: Could you clarify what Wikipedia policies support deleting this article, in your view? I am having trouble understanding your nomination statement. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This AFD should be withdrawn or closed. The nom is not seeking deletion ("Now I neither support deletion or support further expand"), and AFD is for proposals for articles to be deleted. It would be better for them to open a discussion on the article's talk page, possibly soliciting input on one or both of the Wikiprojects that cover the article. If, after determining that deletion might be appropriate, they can restart the AFD.

Note, sometimes an AFD proposer is not certain that deletion is the right course, and there's nothing wrong with an AFD to cement a decision like that; but it's not helpful for purely exploratory discussions like this one. TJRC (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conan Altatis

Conan Altatis (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 filmmaker, failing

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, much as per nominator, I looked and couldn't find in depth sources about the subject as such. There are at most a few name drops in articles about films. --GRuban (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Google returned 29 results only (similar entries already removed). The sources are simply passing mentions, failing
  WP:GNG. HiwilmsTalk 07:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from the articles he wrote on his own website, Conan Daily, which is considered unreliable, per
  WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Nicole Saphier

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

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

There is no RS coverage of this person, thus failing notability and also preventing us from building a proper page.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
  talk) 00:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - researching was difficult due to the literally THOUSANDS of hits which are in-depth in which she is the commentator, so it's hard to find articles which are actually about her. But there a quite a few in-depth featuring her, not just on Fox News, where she is a regular contributor, but also on Huffpo, AP, CBSNews, MediaMatters, Bipartisan Press, Mother Jones, Business Insider, Esquire, WaPo. The list goes on and on. This doesn't even really seem to be close.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or, as a compromise, Merge with Fox News - not incredibly impressed that the most hits about her are on Fox, but as Onel says, there is plenty of coverage out there to write an article. As I have strong opinions on Donald Trump and related people who think COVID-19 is nothing more than "a bit of the sniffles" (and that's putting it politely), I'd rather not get involved in improving this, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - she appears to be notable enough. I take no stance on the content or political leaning of her opinions. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yogacharya K. B. Sahasrabudhe

Yogacharya K. B. Sahasrabudhe (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 uncited for 11 years now. Nothing usable found on web, nor in index of any of a shelf of books on yoga as exercise. Subject seems not to be notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Article does not meet GNG, BASIC or ANYBIO.   // Timothy :: talk  13:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sorry i didn't find any
  WP:BASIC. VocalIndia (talk) 17:36, 11 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.

Beware (Iz*One 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)

article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject Bill Cipher, Stan, Twins, Dipper - Gravity falls and J.Smile 14:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (undecided) - It is confirmed as an upcoming release in about two weeks and it will probably hit the Korean charts, like most of this group's other releases. Normally I would say "delete" because it is a future item, but the situation will surely change two weeks from now. We could just let it go and revisit the page later if the song somehow flops. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 18:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The voter below raises a great point about the poor reasoning of the nomination. This could possibly be closed on procedural grounds. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 13:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:NSONG. Technically we should redirect the title to the album or group until the song's release, at which point it will hit the charts or unexpectedly fail, either way generating the qualifying coverage for an article. But technically the nominator has not provided a valid rationale for deletion, since the topic of this article is a song, not a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble. Are kpop/jpop articles terrible? Yes. Are they a battleground for competing promoters and fans whose English language skills confine them to copy/pasting Google Translated press releases and appending entries to endless lists of tedious minutiae? Yes. Does A7 apply to songs? Regrettably, no. But this song will pass NSONG right around the time this AfD is over, meaning that even if is deleted here it will just be recreated. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It’s probably not a very good idea to just presume it will eventually become notable enough. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft. Move it to the draft space as it is not yet notable, but is likely to become so when it releases so there is no point in deleting it just to remake it shortly after. If it proves notability once released, move it from a draft back to an article. Nangears (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have another idea; Redirect to Iz*One - if it becomes notable, just revert the redirect. If not, then no damage is done. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - as per WP:Redirects are cheap - Arjayay (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:TOOSOON. It can be restored once the song is notable enough upon its release. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba–United States relations

Aruba–United States relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

There have been several discussions which have concluded that foreign relations of entities that do not have a foreign policy are not notable. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (after which Foreign relations of Aruba was deleted) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherlands Antilles–United States relations which concluded with a redirect to Netherlands–United States relations. The current page is extremely poor and unmaintained although it does mention that foreign affairs are conducted through the Dutch government. Its only reference is an archived page which also states that US consular activity in the Dutch Caribbean is actually conducted from Curaçao, not Aruba, and the page about that was already deleted after AfD.

@Nakon, Liam987, Northamerica1000, Squeamish Ossifrage, NukeThePukes, LibStar, Tavix, L.tak, MelanieN, Seyasirt, Bearian, Раціональне анархіст, Natg 19, Nick-D, Solntsa90, and Egsan Bacon: courtesy pinging contributors in discussions mentioned above. Place Clichy (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of United States-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. I would not oppose a redirect to a relevant Netherlands article. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Editors are free to undelete for the purpose of transwiki if Wiktionary wants this content. Sandstein 16:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahiraṅga

Bahiraṅga (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) 14:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yep, there's no underlying topic for an article here.
  WP:NOTDICT applies. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Transwikify to wiktionary. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwikify to Wiktionary as a dicionary definition. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see why we'd traswiki a word in another language. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC) P.S. I want to add that if this word represented a concept, I would go ahead and keep it. 15:23, 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. Tone 08:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Ray Tanner

Drew Ray Tanner (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 actor, fails to satisfy general notability criteria and

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not satisfy
  acting notability guidelines. Google search finds that he exists and uses social media. We knew that. Too many of the sources are social media. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I am wary of an article that is created in both draft space and article space. This appears to be a proponent who is trying to prevent draftification and is hoping that the reviewers will just leave the article in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Consensus is the coverage rises above BLP1E, and satisfies GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Simons (politician)

Ben Simons (politician) (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 not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GNG. The Oregonian, Register-Guard, Willamete Week, Seattle Times, etc. These are not all just "local" papers; The Oregonian is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't expect all notable mayors to get national media coverage. State-wide coverage is sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This violates one event rules. He receives trivia following short coverage for being exceptionally young, no actual substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. "Small Oregon town elects first teenaged mayor". WNYT NewsChannel 13. 2018-11-09. Retrieved 2020-10-05. (Albany, New YorkY)
2. "From high school graduate to small town mayor". www.kitv.com. Retrieved 2020-10-05. (Honolulu, Hawaii)
3. McGowen, Jordan. "18 year-old Mayor elected in Oregon". WILX.com. Retrieved 2020-10-05. (Lansing, Michigan)
4. Boston, Alysen; Editorial Board (Nov 16, 2018). "Our View: Qualifications, not age, should be criteria for public office". Moscow-Pullman Daily News. Retrieved 2020-10-05. (Moscow, Idaho)
5. Associated Press (November 11, 2018). "Oregon teen mayor: People can serve no matter their age". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2020-10-05. (Washington, DC).

• Keep. Passes
  WP:GNG. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 12:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless somebody can improve the article. Mayors are not automatically notable just because they exist, happening to be the youngest mayor in his own town's history does not make him more special than other mayors of the same town all by itself, and the existence of a
  WP:GNG all by itself — the test for mayoral notability is the ability to write a substantive article about his work in the mayor's chair, documenting and sourcing specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the city's development, and on and so forth, all sourced to ongoing career coverage rather than just repeated reverification of his initial election victory. If you can't write an article like that, then a mayor does not get an inclusion freebie just because it's possible to source his birthdate and where he went to college. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete His age is a curiosity but part-time officials in very small towns are generally not notable from routine coverage. A merge to Yoncalla, Oregon may be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 04:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS, all of the coverage of him is from his election, it's routine, and he is not an official of any sort of political division that we would consider remotely notable. If he continues to receive coverage we can take another look, but he's definitely not permanently notable just for winning a hyper-local election at a young age. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I've added some content and one source related to projects completed in his first year in office. However, if this is not enough to meet NPOL, merging with Yoncalla, Oregon where there is a mention of his election already, would be appropriate, as suggested by Reywas92. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be fine with adding this information to the Yoncalla article and that is probably the correct result. The local news station article on a local mayor, which is the "first year in office" article, wouldn't be enough for him to have a standalone article given how we treat local American mayors, especially of small towns such as this one. He's still not really eligible for a standalone article (in spite of the ARS !votes below) as all of the coverage is a one-off or hyper-local but I think this would be well suited for the town article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As nom, I'd also support a selective merge to Yoncalla, Oregon. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes
  WP:NBIO pass. Lightburst (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per GNG. User:Liz, User:Lightburst and User:Grand'mere Eugene are right in their reasoning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this level of coverage is clearly exceptional for a small-town mayor, he passes GNG and
  WP:MILL. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:17, 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. Tone 17:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capital C Corporation

Capital C Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Startup company, had first round of financing in late 2018, does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails NCORP. Rotine directory article, but WP is not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and DGG. I can see nothing of notability here. Fails
  WP:GNG. The range of new articles created by the author of this suggests that payment rather than encyclopaedic breadth may be their incentive.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Author now blocked as a sock  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom and
  WP:NCORP. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I did some editing to remove peacockery, etc., but the article is doing little but setting out the company's wares (still with some unresolved superlative buzzwords), supported mainly by routine announcement coverage, fastest-growing lists, etc. which are not sufficient for
  WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jagat Singh (raja of Isarda)

Jagat Singh (raja of Isarda) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Royal genealogical entry and no sources provided to indicate otherwise. He was born in post-independence India and so was always only a titular Raja (King) as the princely states had been abolished by the time he came to the throne. All the books listed in the ref section are about his mother

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have
  talk) 00:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom. All the books listed in the ref section are about his parents. Nothing else provided to indicate notability. Fails
  TheRedDomitor (talk) 01:37, 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 delete. Tone 08:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sahasavanthudu

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

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

Film tagged for notability since January 2018. Nothing found in a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have
  talk) 00:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Though this website stories reviews and other archives for the majority of NTR's movies, it hasn't stored any review for this film. However, the songbook is available. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:15, 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.

Garmiani

Garmiani (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 BLP article, with questionable sourcing. Salimfadhley (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article Garmiani, because it clearly shows that the person is not suitable for Wikipedia article — Preceding Pakmusicana comment added by Pakmusicana (talk • contribs) 10:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC) struck vote by sockpuppet of Saqlain Malek. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saqlain Malek.[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Son and Daughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Okay, it's a song by Queen, but not nearly enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't meet WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Queen (Queen album) - I was actually surprised at how little coverage there actually is on this song in reliable sources. While it does not have nearly enough coverage to sustain an independent article, it should certainly at least redirect to the notable album that it came from. Rorshacma (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Queen (Queen album). I concur with Rorshacma. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:28, 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 delete. Tone 08:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Pourret Wythe

Charlotte Pourret Wythe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Child actor, who was the replacement on stage for a significant role, but that has been their only significant role, so does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The child actor in question has had significant roles in three major theatre productions, ie multiple productions, as per
  WP:NACTOR, in the United Kingdom. Those three productions are Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, Annie and Billy Elliot the Musical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:D663:C700:2402:9A71:B0E1:6338 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. I'm not clear on which role the nom refers to as significant and which they claim were not significant. This young actor has been performing steadily in professional theatre, including in the West End and national tours, since she was eight years old, and now she has appeared in at least two West End shows, an off-West End show, a long-running national tour and numerous pantomimes. So, which roles were not "significant"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Doing All Right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Simply not enough in-depth coverage to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per
  WP:NSONG, there is simply not enough coverage. The summary in the redirect target is sufficient, there is no justification for a standalone article. Polyamorph (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Smile (band). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:29, 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. Tone 17:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DAuto Engineering Private Limited

DAuto Engineering Private Limited (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 NCORP. There isn't a single independent, reliable source that covers this company in detail.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 11:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 11:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 11:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Non-notable company created by a company employee. Jumpytoo Talk 10:15, 11 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.

Mismatched

Mismatched (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 simple case of

Note: This discussion has been included in the

TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

TheRedDomitor (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for
  talk) 00:03, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahab Khan (Actor)

Shahab Khan (Actor) (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 actor.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete preferably speedily. There is no evidence this satisfies
  WP:NACTOR. Praxidicae (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete clearly a non notable actor. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails
  WP:COI - putting this much effort into someone with minor roles like this isn't normal. Ravensfire (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Do not delete this account Shahab Khan is a famous television personality... Who has appeared in several successful TV shows. And he has been nominated for best supporting actor twice. Google who is Shahab Khan.. You guys will come to know.. Every Bollywood celeb knows him... I hope you all will understand.. Thank You.. Jesus bless you all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imarmaan (talk • contribs) 10:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Imarmaan is employed by Shahab Khan to promote him. This is not the first account created for that purpose – see

WP:V

) recommends only including names that are in fact sourced, so in a way it would be uncontroversial to do that.

Unfortunately, this is a systemic and very wide-ranging problem.

This does make it very clear that Khan is not notable per

WP:GNG though, so there is that. --bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rothschild Memorial Archway

Rothschild Memorial Archway (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 not appear to be significantly notable in its own right--mentions only, anf a mere listing at the unviesity site. There are available merges. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Princeton University as there doesn't appear to be any independent notability for the archway itself. Alansohn (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Princeton University does not mention this archway. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:35, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalakari film festival

Kalakari film festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pure promo of a non notable film festival that fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per Nom. Zero evidence of notability. DMySon 08:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Looks like spam to me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per all of the above Spiderone 10:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to Affinity (band). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1971–1972

1971–1972 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Appears to fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:NALBUM. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Affinity (band). Album was supposed to be released in 1972 but was cancelled, and finally released 30 years later, at which time it received no reliable notice. The tiny amount of known information about the album can be mentioned at the band's page. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 13:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Affinity (band). Article does not meet NALBUM   // Timothy :: talk  01:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

100 Watt Smile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Appears to fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]