Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 3

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

)

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

Non notable film, nothing found to support it's notability claim in a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, was a mainstream movie in Norway and as such was reviewed in every major Norwegian newspaper. These have been added. To the unsourced synopsis I however say: CUT!. Geschichte (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NetworkVirginia

NetworkVirginia (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)

Seems to fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable company. The article has gone 14 years without the inclusion of a single reference, that just shows the inability to find any coverage from reliable sources to warrant it worth keeping. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is a promotional stub with zero proper sourcing that establishes why this company is notable.TH1980 (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:GNG is not met by any means. No sources at all Maltuguom (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Barely found anything about the site. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Shaking Street Preachers

Hell Shaking Street Preachers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the sources in the article are insufficient to indicate notability, and I haven't been able to find any better sources. This could conceivably be merged to Patriot Prayer, given that most of the coverage of the group (as opposed to the coverage of its most prominent member) is in the context of its members' appearances at Patriot Prayer events. But the possible confusion and/or inconvenience of such a merge probably outweighs the benefits. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the article talks about a group that has gained some notoriety during the last riots,this group has already been identified by the SPLC, and his activities doesnt seem that decrease, and could be generator of more violent incidents. The page needs some of attention for avoid errors and update speculative data.Tetsou TheIronman--Tetsou TheIronman (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Draftify

comment @

WP:SIRS requirements? I looked and didn't find them. Graywalls (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete' the sources in the article are insufficient to indicate notability, and I haven't been able to find any better sources.Author Sanju (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ijeoma Balogun

Ijeoma Balogun (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)

New page review: biography of a young CEO whose only real claim to notability is that she has been named in the Forbes Africa under 30 list of 2019. This received a fair amount of coverage so there are sources, but in essence this looks like PR supporting a promotional article for a PR practitioner. I don’t think the sources really demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Some references are interviews, others are lists of the fabulous fortunate. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject is only notable for being named in the Forbes Africa under 30 list of 2019. Fails
  WP:GNG as no reliable source discussed her independently. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 13:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete As above, references here mainly for being on the forbes list 13:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nomMaltuguom (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Sophia of Egypt

Sophia of Egypt (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)

Poorly sourced article with copyvios, also likely to be factually incorrect (Hagia Sophia was not built for or dedicated to Sophia of Egypt, per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:RS material attesting to the existence of this saint. There are a few mentions of Moses being counted among the wise (sophia) of Egypt, e.g. [14], but no mention of such a saint or martyr that I can locate. Willing to be proved wrong. 24.151.56.107 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbird Group

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

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

Article cites primary sources and press releases and it reads like a press release itself. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus about whether this meets the relevant notability/inclusion guidelines/policy. In 3-6 (or more) months it may be more clear about whether the sourcing supports this as an independent topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Cyberattacks on the Miami-Dade Public Schools System Computer Network

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

)

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

An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article.

This just happened, and it essentially boils down to "Kid disrupted Miami schools for a few days". This is certainly important to the city, and while there's been some reporting of this outside, the effect isn't lasting (nor can it be immediately after the event occurred, nor is it likely to be anyway). Neither is there likely to be any outside lasting interest after the brief splash of a story it's made. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Does appear to fail NEVENT. Also has the potential to be COI creation. Naleksuh (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. National news sources like CBS, NBC and The Hill just started covering this event over the past 24 hours. That should take care of
  WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE exists. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Miami-Dade County Public Schools#History for now. It is a significant event in the school district's history (which currently ends with 2013). If RS coverage persists to grow more than a stub, a stand-alone article can be spun back out. • Gene93k (talk)
• Comment. I'm the one who created the article and I have no association with the Miami-Dade Public School system nor do I have any relatives who are part of it. Therefore no conflict of interest exists. Also, more cyberattacks may come in the following weeks. MDPS has experienced several in the past so these could lead to more crashes. Please know this did not just affect the schools in the city of Miami but rather all the schools in
  Miami-Dade County, a much larger area. Finally, the MDPS is the fifth largest school district in the US. All of this should warrant an article. Lechonero —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 3 September 2020‎ (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Disrupting a large school district doesn't automatically get lasting notability. The 2015 terror hoax that shut down LAUSD, made a bigger splash of news coverage against a bigger school district. The event article was merged for lack of lasting impact. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Even if kept, this article needs a substantial rewrite. As currently written, the article is a pseudobiography of one arrest, which names and features a not yet tried minor more prominently than the events of the disruption. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A pseudobiography? Are you suggesting the info in the article is deliberately fabricated? By the way, you're free to rewrite, change or contribute to the article instead of criticizing it. I've been the only one working on it. I was thinking of rewriting it but I'm not going to put in that effort unless I know the article is going to remain in WP. Lechonero (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:NOT#NEWS still applies as coverage has apparently faded with the news cycle. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge per Gene93k.
  WP:NOTNEWS. This is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber attack on Pensacola, Florida. – The Grid (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Changing vote to weak keep given of the updated information now. I would also note a possible redirect to 2020 Miami-Dade Public Schools cyberattack to match the naming convention of similar cyberattacks. – The Grid (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Predicting by the end of this coverage will grow substantially. Have heard Russian panic already. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly passes
  WP:SIGCOV involving, Congress, the FBI, the United States Secret Service and national news media. Here are a few: Yahoo News 1, ABC News 2, Miami Herald 3. The FBI does not get involved in "local" issues but they were involved in this investigation 4. U.S. Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell of Florida became involved 5. The United States Secret Service does not become involved in "local" issues but they were involved in this investigation 6. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The FBI does not get involved in "local" issues is just flat-out false: the FBI provides all sorts of assistance to local police forces upon request, that's one of its most important roles. And that's exactly what happened here. Ditto the Secret Service. To a first approximation, any cyber-crime carried out anywhere in the US will have the local police force asking the FBI to provide assistance. The fact that the local Congressperson has an opinion shows that she is attentive to what happens in her district, not that this "involves Congress" (it does not). --JBL (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's reminding me of mass shootings in the US which a lot have been condensed into lists such as List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019. – The Grid (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If this article is kept it is going to need a massive amount of cleanup which I have held off on doing since it appeared to be nearing deletion. However I assume the result here would be to merge. Naleksuh (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not just local news. Passes the general notability guidelines for coverage. Dream Focus 23:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge Not a big news, these days DOS attacks by kids are common and we shouldn't be writing about every script kiddie attacks in the US. Or maybe these LOIC/HOIC attacks can be mentined in a separate list article. +++ 我是えっちゃ 03:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons cited by User:Dream Focus and User:Lightburst. Article is not what it was when nominated here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As pointed out already, this is the fourth largest school district in America and the incident has garnered major media attention based on the articles in the New York Times, ABC, etc... And it's bound to only get more attention due to the FBI and Secret Service investigations.Jediting1 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The event has historical valueMaltuguom (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agreed. Also important as a reminder to keep history from repeating itself. TruthLover123 (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  lasting importance. Alternatively, merge to Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Additional comment: A week since this debate opened, coverage of this event has faded. For now, lasting interest beyond breaking news is speculative. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, zero indication of
  WP:LASTing impact. We are not the news. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Eddie891, also per
  WP:BLPCRIME we should defer on putting details of a 16 year old's criminal activity on one of the world's most public websites unless essential. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

See 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse?

Kenosha protests? Lightburst (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Kenosha protests, with 2 dead, $2m+ in damage and non-stop controversy about police conduct, gets the ongoing RS coverage that the Miami-Dade DDoS attack doesn't. Also, the Kenosha shooter gets a brief mention in the 27th paragraph of the article, also the dispute there is not who did it, but whether the shootings are criminal. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Death of Julie Laible. Information for people under the age of 18 were redacted depending on the charges. – The Grid (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: Per
  WP:GEOSCOPE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: The article is much stronger now in that it includes many more references and provides more information on the event. Lechonero (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fredie Blom

Fredie Blom (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)

Farcical longevity claim, the sources all center on the fact he claimed to be a ludicrous age, smoked, and then died. The only sources discuss his death and two very small portions of his life. No obvious place to merge any of this, so it should be deleted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This misrepresents the issue. He has a government-issued identity document, so the claim is not just "his claim", and is probably as reliable as the many others that are listed on this basis. Greenman (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how supercentenarian validation works. Read the articles supercentenarian and longevity claims, and look through the Gerontology Research Group (and their website, which is fairly interesting). I've seen people with government documents showing they're 137 (see the entry on Bir Narayan Chaudhary in longevity myths), that doesn't make their claims remotely plausible. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 10:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To respond here as well, this is not about "supercentenarian validation", as I agree the claim is dubious. This is about the subject's notability. Greenman (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 17:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I agree with the drawbacks of the article but it was posted in the
  ITN on 25 August 2020. Abishe (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Typical longevity fanfluff article: dubious age claim, transient notability. Contains virtually no encyclopedic content. Fails
  WP:NOPAGE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There are numerous other typical longevity fanfluff articles, you fail to say why this one in particular is worthy of deletion. Greenman (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've been pruning them for 2 years now. See here for just the first installment of that effort. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Unconvincing reasons why an African longevity claim in particular should be targeted for deletion when Wikipedia contains numerous others. As stated above, has even appeared on
  Wikipedia:In The News and media around the world. Greenman (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  This has absolutely nothing to do with his being African, my history shows I've nominated fanfluff supercentenarian articles from people in a lot of countries around the world. This article never should have been in ITN; it has almost no substantive sourcing, and certainly nothing approaching the level of veracity required to even consider him being a verified supercentenarian, much less the second oldest man in history. So what, he smoked and claimed to be an implausible age? That's thoroughly

  run of the mill for longevity claims. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

What does it have to do with then? How does this differ from the unverified claims in Category:Longevity_claims, most of which are likely false. As pointed out above, the claim is based on his identity document, not on "his claim". You make it sound like he's some random person with no identification claiming something outrageous. Instead, the outrageous claim that got him worldwide coverage is based on official documentation. Greenman (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there are a lot of articles formerly in that category which have been deleted (my personal favorite is

WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete- typical gerontology fanfluff: sketchy age claim, lots of babble about his personal habits. It's poor form to insinuate someone's singling out articles about African people specifically and I hope the closing administrator takes note. Reyk _YO! 12:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing of substance, and this claim is not even well documented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with notability? Most of the people with articles listed on Category:Longevity_claims have claims that are even more dubious. Greenman (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Actual South African editor here. This article should be deleted since there is no encyclopaedic content. It is pure fanfluff. LefcentrerightDiscuss 18:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The decision should be based on whether the topic is notable or not, rather than on claims such as "fanfluff", or "the claim is farcical", which are not relevant.
  WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list [...] Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The BBC and the Guardian have devoted entire articles to this subject - he is the main topic of the sources - so notability should not be in doubt. In addition, take into account the existence of numerous other similar articles, Category:Longevity_claims. Greenman (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Topic is notable enough for
  WP:GNG, I agree with Greenman's arguments. Jedi wiki 10 (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NOPAGE. Just a fanfluff article that lacks any encyclopedic content. A few longevity feature articles that say very little about the subject are its only sources. Given his extreme age claim to be the oldest man ever and no age validating sources (Guinness/GRG) supporting his claim, he doesn't qualify to be included in nearly any other longevity article. Just delete it. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sujeet Kumar (IAS)

Sujeet Kumar (IAS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An IAS officer who lacks

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A non-notable Indian civil servant with a non-notable position. - hako9 (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: GNG is not there. More sources requiredMaltuguom (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Routine news coverage for appointment to a non-notable position. Otherwise not covered in RS. Generally only senior bureaucrats having served at important posts are able to meet the notability criteria

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 that the sourcing available is not sufficient to establish notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BangDB

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

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

This is a promotional article. The subject, people or organizations related to it have come up as

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not have significant independent coverage. Mentioned in list of nosql databases in an Indian textbook [15], and then the author has mentioned it in some semi-promotional interviews [16]. Being aware that influential software products often don't get coverage in
  WP:RS, I checked programming forums but could not find discussions about BangDB. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This is a database like
  WP:RS like every other secular topic but do have encyclopedic value and merit for knowledge sake. MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Keep I don't agree that BangDB and other databases don't have significant coverage in the media. From my little cursory research, I believe that BangDB meets the notability demands of
  WP:SOFT, I found some notable Google Books Results
  . I discovered that BangDB is featured on the following books:

1. Pattern and Data Analysis in Healthcare Settings - Page 166

2. Advances in Civil, Architectural, Structural and ... - Page 137

3. Encyclopedia of Business Analytics and Optimization - Page 789

4. Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Fourth . PAGE 329

Secondly, I searched the BangDB in

1. Web Search and Browser Log analysis using BangDB for Decision Support

2. OPC UA

and a few others written in non-English languages

Thirdly, I searched BangDB in

1. TRENDING: KEY VALUE DATABASE MARKET OVERVIEW WITH DETAILED ANALYSIS, COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE, FORECAST TO 2026|, THE APACHE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION

2. Global Key Value Database Market Analysis by Emerging Growth Factors and Revenue Forecast to 2026

3. KEY VALUE DATABASE MARKET GROWTH SET TO SURGE SIGNIFICANTLY DURING 2020 – 2025 | THE APACHE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, MEMCACHED, REDIS LABS, COUCHBASE

4. GLOBAL KEY VALUE DATABASE MARKET 2020-2025 KEY INSIGHTS, BUSINESS OVERVIEW, INDUSTRY TRENDS,(COVID-19 OUTBREAK) CHALLENGES BY TOP PLAYERS- THE APACHE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, MICROSOFT, COUCHBASE

5. Key Value Database Market Challenges and Growth Factor By 2026| The Apache Software Foundation, Redis Labs, Aerospike

and a few others

• By the above, I strongly believe that BangDB as a database passes
  WP:GNG and hence should be kept. Looking at the page, I guess the content is factual. If there are seemingly promotional words or tones, they should be removed and let the article be on wiki for educational purposes. My submssion anyway.Mariah200 (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Tokyo, Cabinet / Tyrant, Scalien, Voldemort, Dynomite, KAI, MemcacheDB, Chordless, HamsterDB, Tarantool/Box, Maxtable, Pincaster, RaptorDB, Mnesia, LightCloud, Hibari, OpenLDAP, LSM, STSdb. My added links show that we actually have quite a number of articles on key-value databases, and there are more in Key–value database (which could use some more references BTW).

    But I'm quite sure that such a listing is pretty much exactly what WP:SIGCOV calls "a trivial mention". The other sources are not much better. To other editors commenting here: please read the cited refs before letting yourself get convinced that that there is SIGCOV when there isn't. Vexations (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yeah that is a link-dump of insignificant mentions, of which five are the same insignificant mention in "Global Key Value Database Market report" and one is about decibels of bangs (or db-bang), and not this database. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and wikify per above. There are enough reliable sources to establish
  WP:SOFTWARE. If it is decided to keep it, the article need a complete revamp to remove the promotional tone and unnecessary information. GiuliaZB (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Having gone through the sources posted above and those in the article, there's no significant coverage. There is a bit of coverage on the company (which itself was deleted) and only trivial mentions of BangDB itself (some of which, per Thjarkur above, don't actually refer to the topic at hand). Doesn't meet the GNG. -M.Nelson (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the imposing pile of sources listed above simply do not seem to actually discuss the topic in any depth. Yes, BangDB is mentioned in several books and several websites (some of dubious reliability, regurgitating press releases). No, it does not appear to actually be discussed "as significant in its particular field" as required by
  WP:GNG. ~ mazca ^talk 18:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Meets
  WP:SOFTWARE looking at the Books and few websites it appeared.Maltuguom (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete- does not pass
  talk) 00:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete a non-notable software with no significant coverage in reliable soruces and no evidence of satisfying WP:NSOFT. GSS ^💬 06:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitto Password Manager

Mitto Password Manager (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)

Plagued with issues, dead links to its official website or extension download pages. Needs to go. First nom didn't have enough participants. ~★ nmaia ^d 01:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Though very problematic advertisement-like material could and should be removed, I can't find any reliable sources on the topic. Noahfgodard (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) ( Stupid bot : I've restored this !vote because it was wiped by an edit ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC) )[reply]

• Keep: Dead links, which may sometimes be temporary, are not a reason for deletion. The article has been disrupted by claims of advertising which may be unfounded and at AfD I like to see it at the time of nom. not as negatively edited subsequently ... as that is often a sign a !delete voter needs to do that to win the argument ... positive improvements are welcome. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet
  XVDC (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  talk) 07:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, the last reference is a decent software review which builds on the matter in the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuur Groete aan Mannetjies Roux

Stuur Groete aan Mannetjies Roux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I found this article among the remaining unreviewed content translations from 2016; see

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 13:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In addition to the existing source in the article, a Google search led me to just two pertinent sources, both of them reviews from the week of the film's release, this and this. For what it's worth, Rotten Tomatoes lists no reviews, though I don't know whether one would expect to find any there for a independent South African film. No indication of persistent note, falls well short of
  WP:NFILM, as I think that at most one of the three writers (Diane de Beer) might be of national note. Largoplazo (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have requested the author of the original article (of which this is a translation) to try to provide additional information about the film -- references, reviews and reasons why it is notable. If they respond by adding anything to the original article, I will translate it and add it to this English version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallakj (talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the two full reviews identified above that show a likelihood of passing
  WP:NFILM in my view,Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revathy Sampath

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

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

Does not appear to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 17:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just spam links and unreliable sources on the article. Can't find anything substantial through websearch. - hako9 (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Glitz and glamour, Facebook, too! Fails
  WP:ELP for Facebook. No references are substantial, as per above. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Doesn't meet
  WP:ACTORBIO-- Padavalam  ►  14:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark

Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable member of former royal family which was deposed before she was born. This was deleted after a previous deletion discussion, it was re-created without a deletion review, an admin has declined a request for speedy deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This princess is the kind of member of a deposed royal family that Wikipedia can have an article about, because she has sought out the public spotlight for fashion modeling and been profiled in major media (Town & Country, Teen Vogue, Hello!). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked up the prior AfD, which was from 2011. At that time, the subject hadn't begun her fashion modeling career nor were there any media profiles of her cited; the article was pure genealogy. In that AfD, I recommended "delete", but I wrote: "... this deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if she becomes notable in the future (for example, as the kind of socialite frequently featured in Vanity Fair (magazine))." Well, here she is in Vanity Fair. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is almost no coverage, and even taking a licence and perhaps viewing the lady as a model, wouldn't cut it either. There is no coverage there either. The Vanity Fair is all passing mentions. The name is being used to push the brand, unfortunately not the person. Fails
  WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That is a single article, and you need multiple, independent, secondary sources that in-depth. A single article is more of the same, an indication that she is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the above user's reasoning. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above user's reasoning was that four different articles I cited from four different magazines were "a single article". Can you explain what made that so persuasive? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the last discussion got this right, the sourcing does not add up to showing actual notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don’t believe royalty, including abolished monarchies, are inherited notability and her modeling work doesn’t add up to more than about 2 sentences. Who knows if in the future that will change. Trillfendi (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep She has a strong media presence, to say the least. Articles and coverage in Vogue, Hello Magazine, Honey, Tatler, WWD, Greek City Times, W Magazine, Insider, US Magazine, Suitcase, Vanity Fair, La Ligne, Teen Vogue, Hola, The Sun, and The Daily Express. She certainly seems to meet the criteria for at least a notable socialite, IMO. I'd like to clarify that while she is also a member of a deposed royal family, she maintains a legal status as princess in the
  Kingdom of Denmark, which is very-much still a monarchy. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Although as a general rule I would regard princesses as notable, in her case her position as a princess of Denmark appears to be because she is the 4-greats granddaughter of Christian IX of Denmark, not a strong claim to notability. PatGallacher (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • While her status as a Danish princess may not establish notability, certainly the amount of coverage in the press (especially with sources like Vogue, Teen Vogue, Tatler, and W) establishes general notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the last deletion vote this individual has established herself as a notable model and socialite. Above users have included sources in well respected industry publications mentioning this individual. Irrespective of abolished Greek titles, she still has legal standing as a princess of Denmark, no matter how far the patriline descent from Christian IX. --Richiepip (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Personally, I am all for former royalty having their own Wikipedia articles as they represent a system (the monarchy) that governed the entire world for thousands of years and in some regions does to this day. But at the same time it is necessary that the article pass
  TheRedDomitor (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep She is a notable socialite and arguably more notable than her younger brother Constantine-Alexios. She has been covered in reliable sources that are not tabloid or strictly fashion. For examples, Business Insider, International Business Times, Yahoo, CNN, El Mundo, La Vangaurdia, and Kathimerini to name a few. I am sure there are other Greek news sites that ran at least one article about her. Besides, there are other articles of socialites and fashion models that mostly consist of their early life, education, marriage, family, and career. StellarHalo (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Keeping aside the debate on the notability of the Princess' modelling career or lack of, two wrongs don't make one right! Not singling out this discussion but generally speaking...If there are other such articles that fail to meet the GNG's then those should be put up for discussion and deleted not vice-versa. Keeping an article whose notability is questionable because there are many more like it doesn't set a very constructive precedent.
    TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment: The point I was trying to make is that despite the fact that the amount of information on a socialite or fashion model's career we could write from sources is often limited to maybe a short paragraph or two, the notability of those articles was never questioned. I have not seen any factual argument that support the notion that these socialites and fashion models have no significant coverage and fail
      WP:GNG in face of plethora of reliable sources. StellarHalo (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete- As per nom; Not a very significant modelling career, very far down in the Danish line of succession and will never head her royal house either.
  Sunshine1191 (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment She actually is not in the line of succession to the Danish throne, as her grandmother renounced her rights when she married into the Greek Royal Family, which itself lost their Danish succession rights when, upon the implementation of female succession to the Danish throne, the line of succession was limited to descendants of King Christian X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage to establish notability Charmk (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I'm not even sure why this is listed here?. Just a basic google search shows there are a *lot* of articles on her, including some feature articles in Vogue, Vanity Fair, Marie Claire, Times of India, New York Times, Tatler, Harpersbazarre, USmagazine, Busnessinsider. A noted socialite, royal figure, model and fashion figure. Wide coverage in news and other titles as well. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced article. As other has noted she is well covered as model and socialite, and she is a member of not one but two royal houses, one of which is very much extant. Iv'e added some information about her career as model and additional sources to the article. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She does pass GNG: the sources provided are reliable, secondary and independent of the subject, and she's the focus of the sources, which means there's "significant coverage" as defined by GNG. Royalty and nobility fail GNG (1) when they are only mentioned in passing in sources: i.e. there's a list of descendants somewhere and they're listed there, which is a trivial mention as they are not the focus; or (2) when they are only mentioned in sources that are not reliable, or not secondary or not independent of the subject. Neither applies in this particular case. DrKay (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

• Delete even more deposed monarchy cruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not realy a helpfull comment - and you have allready called for delete previosly on 28 August 2020. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert If that's your only objection, I would note that she is a princess of the Danish Monarchy, who are very much not deposed! Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is still a very minor part of a monarchy, who does not actually do things in government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's correct, that Olympia has only a minor part in the Danish monarchy, and isn't in any way involved in the politics of Denmark to my knowledge, but often I think you republicans, especially those of you who actually don't live in a monarchy, in some respects misjudge the role of the monarchy (and it's not about whether one dislike the institution of monarchy or not). Many modern monarchs, and monarchies has various subtle ways, where they directly or indirectly can influence political questions, or in some cases being a neutral arbitrator, or possessing the popularity and personal integrity that can keep some states (with internal frictions between various communities within the realm) from faling apart. And in the formal sence most monarchies are still part of "doing things in government" as we for instance can se from this picture, where the queen of Denmark is approving that her daughter-in-law, crownprincess Mary, can be granted the role as regent of the realm if such a need may occur once in a while in the future. It's interesting to see from this picture, that this is not a 'special' or 'extraordinary' meeting in the council of the Sovereign with only this one issue on the agenda, it's a quite regular meeting in the council (there have been around 600 of these meetings in the reign of the present queen of Denmark) and we can see the large number of laws in front of the queen, that needs her approval before they can enter into force (we see the primeminister to the right in the picture). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  WP:SIGCOV is met hereMaltuguom (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Actually it looks like, that there are a lot more sources and coverage to be found on this individual, than both the article about her and this AfD discussion reveals. It seem, that all the references so far for the article and probably also most of the searches for this discussion is based on her "full" name "Maria-Olympia of Greece", but in actual fact she dosen't use Maria privately nor professionally she just calls herself Olympia, so if you search for instance Google for "Maria-Olympia of Greece" you will only get around 45% of the results as if you searched for "Olympia of Greece" in stead. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now updated with information on her studies at university and other personal details (including her being known by the name Olympia). Oleryhlolsson (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. Also searching for her using different languages will reveal many more sources as well. StellarHalo (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on media coverage she passes GNG. - dwc lr (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on
  WP:SIGCOV - not as royalty per se. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

*Delete Comment It has been more than 7 days (now 11days) since the relist. This is deliberately procrastinating. However, the final relist is clearly kept (all Keep and 0 delete- so clearly kept), but admin are procrastinating to close this one and her brother AfD, more than they need to. They will wait again until they get more delete votes from Anti-monarchist. So why is it still discussion for? Our time is wasted. I understand what they want so I change my vote to Delete. Be happy ကိုမေကိိုလိုး နမလိုး မအေလိူးတွေ :) . 37.111.14.243 (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A rather strange comment, especially since it's not until tomorrow (Friday 11 September 2020) that 7 days has past since the relisting of this AfD. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean his brother article Oleryhlolsson. Some cow 🐄 spreading the mat near the end of the match. 37.111.14.243 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2004–05 Newport County A.F.C. season

2004–05 Newport County A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 11:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NSEASONS as the coverage is all routine and the club was not playing in a professional league Spiderone 08:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 20:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 Newport County A.F.C. season

2005–06 Newport County A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NSEASONS as the coverage is all routine and the club was not playing in a professional league Spiderone 08:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 20:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 Newport County A.F.C. season

2006–07 Newport County A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NSEASONS as the coverage is all routine and the club was not playing in a professional league Spiderone 08:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 20:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 Newport County A.F.C. season

2007–08 Newport County A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NSEASONS as the coverage is all routine and the club was not playing in a professional league Spiderone 08:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 20:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Newport County A.F.C. season

2009–10 Newport County A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NSEASONS as the coverage is all routine and the club was not playing in a professional league Spiderone 08:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 20:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Barrow A.F.C. season

2012–13 Barrow A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 11:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:NSEASONS as the coverage is all routine and the club was not playing in a professional league Spiderone 08:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 20:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Luton Town F.C. season

2013–14 Luton Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets
  WP:NSEASONS does not take precedence over GNG and the nominator should have first checked whether sources exist that demonstrate notability before nominating the article for deletion. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - probably meets GNG and is well written with well-sourced prose. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets GNG. GiantSnowman 11:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets
  WP:NSEASONS. Lightburst (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Depends how strict people want to be, but a lot of season articles could take some notes on how to construct prose from here, this is a good example of how a non-league article can push beyond GNG. Because this is a winning season that got them back into the league I am happy with it. Otherwise I might have been shouting WP:ROUTINE from the roof-tops. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shatrughan Sahu

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

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources satisfy sigcov. His position as a non-elected member of a party is also non-notable. - hako9 (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would be surprised if a state president (2018-2020) for an important political party wouldn't be sufficient for notability. If more sources are requested, they are probably to some extent to be found in other languages than English. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oleryhlolsson, An ex-state president btw. It would have been an important role, if the party had a presence in Bihar state, but they don't. - hako9 (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No SIGCOV to pass GNG, NPOL, or BASIC.   // Timothy :: talk  21:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Price (rugby)

Lawrence Price (rugby) (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)

Amateur player does not meet general notability standards Skeene88 (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Skeene88, why was the creator not informed of this AfD? Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn. If you use WP:Twinkle then the creator is informed but the instructions as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion do not mention telling them. Of course it is a good idea to do that but not mandatory. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete and redirect to Fanta#International availability. The consensus is to delete, recreating as a redirect to give the 7,000 viewers a month somewhere to go Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]