Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 29 July	31 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 00:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guadalupe Urbina[edit]

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

It's seems like can't pass the wikipedia:BIO Feloniii (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Feloniii[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has references from La Nacíon, The Tico Times and Latin American Music Review. The nominator has not explained why these sources are not enough to establish notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:BASIC "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Tico Times calls her "Queen of Folk: Guadalupe Urbina." There is a documentary about her life and work. The article cites multiple RS. She is clearly notable, just one of three malformed AfDs against notable women filed by Feloniii (the other two are Columbia professor Keren Bergman and Costa Rican actress Thelma Darkings. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator seems to not to have read the article, or done a proper WP:BEFORE. There are sufficient RS to establish notability. Maybe a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Netherzone (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage in Spanish language reliable sources as described in this discussion so passsing WP:Basic in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep As the subject of a documentary about her life this nomination has no chance of passing. PainProf (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly has independant coverage. Uncertain why nom put this article up for AfD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for her coverage in Spanish language sources and for the documentary film. Alex-h (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:44, 4 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. BD2412 T 00:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Workers' Group (New Zealand)[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable organisation. The article itself has no sources at all. I was not able to find any non-primary sources. (I only searched online sources; if this organisation does date from 1992 then there may be newspaper or book sources not available online.) Perhaps any verifiable material from this article could be incorporated into Socialism in New Zealand. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and unsourced. --IdiotSavant (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. There are primary sources and wikipedia mirrors out there, nothing else shows. JW 1961 Talk 22:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the subject, as it happens, is both obscure in terms of politics and non-notable per Wikipedia guidelines. -The Gnome (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Ramalingam[edit]

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

This director has only directed one film. WP:Too early. Not notable. Also, the sources listed are not reliable. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs provided in the article do not cover the subject in detail - they are just trivial mentions. As for WP:BEFORE, I have found only 1 ref(here) which obviously is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too early. Zindagi713 (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:Too soon , Alex-h (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devokewater @ 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NACTOR, and TOOSOON. There is The Hindu article, but he's not even the primary focus of the article. Having only made one film, which was nominated for awards, is not sufficient for WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 5 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 moved to Draft:Yuta (musician). BD2412 T 00:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuta (musician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSINGER and does not show notability outside of the group he is in. It is worth noting that draft of this article was declined less than 48 hours ago as not showing independent notability, before being published under a different article name (Nakamoto Yuta (singer)) less than 24 hours later with no improvement. Information has since been added, but still individual still lacks any notability outside of the group. Alex (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Yuta fails WP:NSINGER at this time. The creator of the article, Neocitylife, should not have moved the article after I declined the AfC submission in the first place. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. This page should move back to draftspace. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, agree with above, new editor who appears to be confused about how wikipedia works, we can probably give them benefit of any doubt. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The proper procedure as described by Nkon21 above. It's possible that the singer will someday qualify for a WP article but the opinions of the AfC crew on this version of the article should be heeded. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how a backup singer/dancer is notable. Userfying this mess will only encourage re-submission too soon. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I threw in in with the Draftify idea, but Bearian makes a good point. If Draftify is the ultimate decision, do whatever is necessary to prevent unmerited publication yet again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a complete deletion of the page is necessary, as the subject could possibly become notable sooner of later. It'll avoid having the page being recreated entirely from scratch once that point arrives. If the draft is shown to be continually resubmitted without any efforts to establish notability, the AFC reviewer can just reject the draft for the time being. But I know that I'm basing this off of a "what if" so deleting would be an adequate second choice imo. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN and even WP:GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON possibly. The text can always be saved up and used for a new draft if anyone feels like it. -The Gnome (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katarina Lilja[edit]

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

A non notable musician that does not meet WP:NMUSIC. No obvious candidate for redirection. Unable to verify any claims as WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, secondary sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If anyone is overly concerned about alternatives to deletion, as a last resort her name could possibly be redirected to Therion (band). However she was only ever a session singer for that band, making a guest appearance on one album and helping on a few tours. She was never an official member so she may not qualify for a redirect to that band per WP policy. Meanwhile, none of her other activities merit inclusion in WP, as her other band Sisters of the Moon has generated no significant coverage beyond their own social media, and I could only find one South American webzine review of their album ([1]). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this time not within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:MILL, and WP:OUTCOMES. Backup singers are almost never notable. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NMUSIC. As it happens, I'm an aficionado of biographies, details, or obscurities related to music but I'm not looking for them in Wikipedia because this is not a directory of music nor some assortment of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject is notable and meets GNG. —Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Keels[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO (claimed recognition isn't notable). While you can find books he wrote, information from media that carried his broadcasts, and of course stuff from the teams he covered, there's almost no independent coverage about him, certainly not enough for WP:GNG. Our systemic bias ensures that media characters in the West get coverage and I warn against WP:ILIKEIT !votes based upon that bias. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Seriously? How is someone who for over 30 years called NCAA Division I football and basketball (OSU and Michigan) including 2 National Championship games 3 Final Fours, MLB games (Reds), NBA games (Pistons), is a 4-time National Sports Media Association Ohio Sportscaster of the Year, Ohio Broadcasters HOFer, and has written a book not notable? This almost looks like a personal thing against Keels. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to your accusation against me on the talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short, you want to delete the Keels article to justify your opinion about a similar article. That's getting into WP:Point territory. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to remain civil. Despite your inclusionist beliefs, neither WP:NATH, WP:NRADIO, WP:CREATIVE, nor WP:SPORTSPERSON agree with your claims about notability. There's also a point here about how Wikipedia already includes so many people connected to sport and entertainment. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been back and forth with this one actually. I agree that the subject hardly meets specific notability guidelines listed above, but I think he might pass WP:GNG (borderline). I also think we should not ignore the awards as they can be one of the criterion he actually meets from WP:ANYBIO (although again they are not as "well known and significant" as stated in the guidelines). I have found these sources that were not included in the article: 1, 2. Less Unless (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear pass of WP:GNG from sources provided by EDDY. Subject is widely considered an expert and has been the primary and secondary subject of numerous articles in third party reliable sources, clearly meeting GNG standard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has enough coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since subject meets the criteria for notability. -The Gnome (talk) 06:30, 6 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. Sandstein 12:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Ousepparampil[edit]

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

Total failure of WP:GNG. I did a quick Google search and could not find one single reliable, independent source that showed anything even close to showing significant coverage. The article was put into draftspace and then moved back out for no valid reason. The references provided in the article are all passing mentions. I also see nothing worth merging into another article. Spiderone 21:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NEDITOR, as the editor of a non-notable magazine. He's the principal of a notable college, but hasn't seemingly gained any notability whatsoever from that position. Fails WP:GNG per Spiderone. Zindor (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL, WP:SIGCOV, WP:PROF, and WP:BISHOP. He seems to be a run of the mill principal, priest, and writer. I found zero newspaper articles, and only passing mentions in a few local news blogs from Nagaland and Catholic directories. There are nine articles on Google scholar, most of which have never been cited by anyone else; no paper has been cited more than 14 times. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Aotearoa[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable organisation. The only links in the document are primary sources, and I was unable to find any more non-primary sources. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found this, saying that F. N. Wright (apparently a dissident from the Communist Party of New Zealand, "has gone so far as to promote a minuscule new party, the Communist Party of Aotearoa", but one casual mention calling a party "minuscule" does not notability make. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the factoid from Alexander's book is about a CPA founded in 1974, not the CPA that emerged in 1993. --Soman (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, and poorly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdiotSavant (talk • contribs) 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 17:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. , non notable. Alex-h (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bentoism[edit]

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

It is WP:TOOSOON for an article on this WP:NEOLOGISM, which was introduced in a book, This Could be Our Future, published less than a year ago (in October 2019). The subject is only discussed at length in the publications and website by the author and in articles that are part of the book-launch publicity blitz. In other words, there is insufficient notability, and the existence of a Wikipedia article gives the appearance that the term is much more widely used and discussed than it really is. Biogeographist (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR, WP:NEO, and WP:SIGCOV. We do not publish original research, nor are we Urban Dictionary. There is a single reliable source that is not by the author - an article in GQ. That does not satisfy significant coverage by any means. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are other mainstream sources not cited in the article, beyond what Bearian mentioned, but as I said above they are all part of the book-launch publicity blitz: essentially PR. Biogeographist (talk) 20:01, 5 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 redirect to Pashtun Tahafuz Movement. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hanif Pashteen[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The only web sources I could find are mostly focussed on this movement PTM. I cant find many reliable sources that are independent of this subject. The coverage that exists for this person consist mostly of routine coverage of the movement and a few articles regarding his arrest. But certainly "significant coverage" does not exist, which is a key requirement in meeting WP:GNG Kami2018 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it seems a well sourced article about a notable personality. Khestwol (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, as I have written before, the nom Kami2018, who is mass reporting Pashtun articles for deletion, has disruptively edited articles about Pashtuns in the past and was recently given "last warning" on his talk page twice for removing sourced content from various related articles. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Khestwol. In response to your accusation of Kami2018 acting "disruptively" see here. The edits were all fully legitimate. -The Gnome (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect; this is a well-written article that has numerous Urdu-language sources, and is notable enough to recieve coverage on English-language Pakistani news outlets, which I believe meets WP:BIO Terasaface (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Terasaface Do you mean to say that by barely having a name amongst dozen other people in only 2-3 articles helps it meet WP:BIO. This is what i read in the guidelines for such articles "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". Kami2018 (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kami2018, WP:BASIC states "if depth-of-coverage is not substantial, then multiple less-than-substantial independent sources may be needed to prove notability". It re-states that coverage "must be more than trivial and must be reliable"'". So, the question remains if the 11 sources referenced on the page are "less-than-substantial" mentions or "passing mentions". Thank you The Gnome for clarifying the coverage in the Urdu texts. Since I do not read that language I am having trouble completely writing off this person as not notable given the number of sources. Global protests about Pashteen's detention makes me believe this person is notable, however, perhaps this is WP:BLP1E or WP:TOOSOON. I recognize that I am not familiar enough with international new sources to verify the reliability or independence-of-subject of these sources! Also, this is perhaps my third AFD vote and I recognize I may not yet know all the nuanced guidelines that relate to this discussion. I still hold my vote of keep, although I would also support a Merge of this page into Pashtun Tahafuz Movement. Thanks, Terasaface (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)\[reply]

Greetings, Terasaface. Since the text here is mostly without sources about our subject but contains plenty of references to the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement, a Redirect to that article would be preferable. Unsupported texts are not merged away elsewhere but deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that clarification, The Gnome, I will strike my vote and change to Redirect.

Delete since our subject, despite the gallant efforts by the creator and sole curator of the text to prove the contrary, evidently lacks the level of notability required by Wikipedia in terms of WP:NPOLITICIAN or even WP:GNG. The sources in Urdu are nothing to write home about: This report in Pashtun Express is about "anti-military protests" in general, without one mention of our subject; then we get some irrelevant item in a so-called "tribal news" website; next up, this report in the Pashtun Voice of America is about protests, where our subject is mentioned once as being "arrested"; and so on. The sources in English are equally unimpressive: from ARY News we learn that "Three PTM leaders were arrested over gun attack on police officials" without our subject mentioned even once; etc. Only a website called Dawat Media has an item, mirrored also here in a Sayhoon News Agency, about demands for the "immediate release of Hanif Pashteen." We could graciously invoke WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello The Gnome, thanks for your input, but I do not agree with your interpretations of the Urdu and Pashto references. Some of the articles that you refer to mostly revolve around the main personality, Hanif Pashteen. For example, the Pashto VOA article is literally titled [English translation:] "Bannu police raided the homes of two members of the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement" (i.e. Hanif and another person). So in my opinion, it is not right to disregard this reference by saying that it "is about protests". The article says that Hanif was away from his home at the time of the raid so he was not arrested, but his innocent, younger cousins were arrested. As for ARY, even if they do not name him explicitly, they name him indirectly, because it was Hanif who was arrested in the first place during that raid. Thanks again, Khestwol (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @The Gnome:.Ytpks896 (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The subject is notable as concluded by participants. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 21:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wranga Loni[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The only web sources I could find are mostly focussed on this movement PTM. I cant find many reliable sources that are independent of this subject. The coverage that exists for this person consist mostly of routine coverage of the movement and a few articles regarding his arrest. But certainly "significant coverage" does not exist, which is a key requirement in meeting WP:GNG Kami2018 (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it seems a well sourced article about a notable personality. Khestwol (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, as I have written before, the nom Kami2018, who is mass reporting Pashtun articles for deletion, has disruptively edited articles about Pashtuns in the past and was recently given "last warning" on his talk page twice for removing sourced content from various related articles. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she seems to have gotten some coverage for her activism, both television and newspapers. I can't speak to the other nominations, but this subject appears to be notable. If I'm wrong, please provide evidence. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 5 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. Sandstein 14:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nargis Khattak[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The only web sources I could find are mostly focussed on this movement PTM. I cant find many reliable sources that are independent of this subject. The coverage that exists for this person consist mostly of routine coverage of the movement and a few articles regarding his arrest. But certainly "significant coverage" does not exist, which is a key requirement in meeting WP:GNG Kami2018 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it seems a well sourced article about a notable personality. Khestwol (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, as I have written before, the nom Kami2018, who is mass reporting Pashtun articles for deletion, has disruptively edited articles about Pashtuns in the past and was recently given "last warning" on his talk page twice for removing sourced content from various related articles. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this accusation of Kami2018 allegedly acting "disruptively," interested editors may want to check this. Kami2018's edits were all fully legitimate. The "warning" on the other hand was not. -The Gnome (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - part of a mass nomination series, this one is probably not notable, based on that I could only find a single source where she a primary focus of a reliable source. I would not oppose a merger or redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few sources about protests in the country, in general, but not much about our subject per se. E.g. here we have a report titled "Protesting Pashtuns demand public hanging of Pervez Musharraf" with one mention of our subject ("one human rights activist, Nargis Afsheen Khattak, tweeted", etc). Nothing substantial and dedicated. Unsupported claims that "sources exist" don't do much. -The Gnome (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The atricle passes WP:GNG and is notable as highlighted in the discussion (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 05:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Said Alam[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The only web sources I could find are mostly focussed on this movement PTM. I cant find many reliable sources that are independent of this subject. The coverage that exists for this person consist mostly of routine coverage of the movement and a few articles regarding his arrest. But certainly "significant coverage" does not exist, which is a key requirement in meeting WP:GNG Kami2018 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it seems a well sourced article about a notable personality. Khestwol (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, as I have written before, the nom Kami2018, who is mass reporting Pashtun articles for deletion, has disruptively edited articles about Pashtuns in the past and was recently given "last warning" on his talk page twice for removing sourced content from various related articles. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By giving this argument, I suppose you cannot justify the presence of these articles which have no importance at individual level. Thankyou Kami2018 (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pashtun Tahafuz Movement. The subject is discussed and covered in multiple reliable sources, but with trival mentions. Almost every source said "founder/co-founder of Pashtun Tahafuz Movement". Therefore, it be redirected to the said organisation. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article deserves to stay per WP:BLP, WP:GNG, WP:BIO. --Harryishere (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's plenty of sources online about this doctor's activism on several issues. I'm confused by nomination. Others in the movement(s) he espouses might not be notable, but this person certainly is notable. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Additional WP:RS found and passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 05:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lion's Share (band)[edit]

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

I don't think this is a notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish heavy metal band. The "sourcing" of the article consists of social media pages, databases and the official site of the band. I also did a google search and couldn't find anything besides the aforementioned sites, as well as sites where these words are not in connection with the band. I have found an Allmusic biography which is a good sign because it is reliable, but I did not found anything else. I have also found some blurbs about them releasing a lyrics video for their new song, I don't think that counts as reliable. Therefore I think this band is not notable. Probably there are some reliable sources in Swedish; since I don't speak the language I don't know. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. // Timothy :: talk 05:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's an Allmusic biography, plus a review, and further coverage: [13], [14]. Seems very likely that more coverage exists in non-English sources. --Michig (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Michig:: Thanks for the sources. The Swedish ones look reliable although I don't know what they are talking about (as I don't speak Swedish). Leaning towards keep now. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:51, 4 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. Sandstein 14:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. 6803[edit]

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

As I've explained in all my other nominations of this user's articles, this article has been padded with extraneous information about the surroundings. The references are spurious. The only reference is a blog entry by a climber who says "sometimes referred to as Sri Kailas West". The more notable peak Sri Kailash is 4kms away. No reliable references are available in established mountaineering literature and gazettes that attest to the notability of this geographical feature (except a climber who claims to have who found the peak through Google Earth). Not notable and fails WP:GEOLAND #4 MaysinFourty (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the range, no? Hyperbolick (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND as there is no WP:SIGCOV of this topic whatsoever. After researching, this topic's most detailed source I could locate is one line in an obscure data list (on the eighth page) on a climbing fan club website. There is a significant height difference between "P 6803" in this article (22,320 ft) and this source (22,217 ft). A microscopic one line PDF list entry here exists for "Sri Kailash west". This topic just isn't notable or worth keeping in any form on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable as per nom and Newshunter12. The first ascent article is interesting, but not notable. Searching Google and Google Books for "Sri Kailash west" yields only references to this article. Searching for "P 6803 peak" has more hits, but I only saw list results. Cxbrx (talk)

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) 19:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cymru Annibynnol[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. This group became Cymru Rydd which was deleted through AfD. This article, if anything, is less appropriate for inclusion, as it is a festival of Citation Needed tags. No evidence of ORG or GNG, no evidence of importance prior to, during, or following election campaigns. No evidence of achievement. One citation proves existence. Usefulness is not a valid reason to retain an article. doktorb _words^deeds 06:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 06:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 06:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass the WP:GNG. There are plenty of passing mentions in RS media sources and books, but nothing that adds up to significant coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom - not notable enough for its own article. Seagull123 Φ 11:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ProQuest has some 50 hits. Among those I checked there was only one which would count towards GNG, being brief coverage of the party's antics.[15] Not enough so far. Haukur (talk) 13:38, 6 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 redirect to Giant Powder Company. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sobrante, California[edit]

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

This one has been difficult to research. Most searches are overwhelmed by hits on El Sobrante, a nearby city. Durham calls Sobrante a locality on the Southern Pacific RR. Old topo maps show the name at a railroad siding with no other buildings in the vicinity. A couple other minor references to the fact that there was some sort of rail facility named Sobrante. Nothing to indicate that this was a community. There was a Sobrante School district but it was in the town of Giant. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to El Sobrante, California Delete per nom and below. // Timothy :: talk 01:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirect to El Sobrante doesn't make much sense. They share similar names but otherwise are unrelated. Sobrante is actually within Richmond. Glendoremus (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Redirect to Giant Powder Company. I ended up searching newspapers.com for "Sobrante Nitro", which found some hits. I did see a reference to explosion victims living at Giant, Richmond, California (aka Nitro), so it might make sense to redirect to there instead. However, the references for the explosives plant specifically mention Sobrante, not Giant. There are references for Sobrante having an explosives plant as early as 1883. The Giant, Richmond, California page states that the Giant Powder Company created the company town of Giant in 1892 citing a California Historical Landmark. It would be better to redirect Sobrante with Giant Powder Company because it predates Giant, Richmond, California and Sobrante has citations as being the site of the Giant plant. I have not yet found citations for anyone living at Sobrante and Sobrante did not have a post office, so I ~~agree with the nom that Sobrante was a siding and only a siding.~~ These days, Sobrante is not listed as having a Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council, so it seems like no one lives there now. Cxbrx (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found two references that state that Sobrante was a fishing village, one reference says village was present in the late 1800s until WW I. However, I still think that this article should be redirected to Giant Powder Company. Cxbrx (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect to Giant Powder Company per suggestion from Cxbrx. Wm335td (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sublime Dreamer[edit]

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

Defunct local clothing company without RS or in-depth coverage. Kbabej (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this meets the notability requirements WP:NCORP due to the lack of independent sources covering it Pi (Talk to me!) 04:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harvesters of the Bay[edit]

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

Non notable film with no known actors and no citations found to support. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes or the less reliable IMDb, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:53, 4 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 redirect to List of Animal Planet original programming. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 21:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pets 101[edit]

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

This has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years, it's time to get a consensus on this. I'm not finding reliable, independent coverage for this show, which lasted a whopping four episodes. I'm finding plenty of coverage produced by Animal Planet, but that is not independent, as AP is the show's original network. IMDB is not a reliable source, and I'm not finding any links to reviews in reliable sources on that page. Tv.com is user-generated per WP:TVRS. I'm finding a few mentions in blogs, but everything else I'm finding is about the related shows Dogs 101 and Cats 101. It's possible there's old coverage in newspapers, but I have no idea, as I do not have access to newspapers.com. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hog Farm, you can get free access to newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library Card Platform, as well as other helpful databases. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TVSERIES, there seems to be a presumption of notability - "Generally, an individual... television program is likely to be notable if it airs... on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. I've done a search of Newspapers.com and Proquest (available through Wikipedia Library]), and have found mentions, but not exhaustive information. Most news articles seem to be local coverage of specific persons or locations being featured on the show ([16], [17], [18]), as well as the typical short blurbs typical for upcoming airings ([19]). -- Netoholic @ 06:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netoholic: The page does say later that major network programs quickly cancelled aren't always notable. Given that this one lasted four episodes, that may be in play. Hog Farm _Bacon 13:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Animal Planet original programming Seems more like a four-quarter special than an actual series; a redirect would work better here per WP:CHEAP. It's doubtful outside of 'Pets 101 airs tonight on Animal Planet' blurbs in TV listings 'tonight in review' segments, it wasn't written about beyond that in newspapers. Nate • (chatter) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Animal Planet original programming, I tried really hard to find sources but nothing of note could be found.★Trekker (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as others have said. Not sufficiently notable for it to have a standalone article by the looks of it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Airlines Flight 115[edit]

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

This article has been nominated for a merge but it was done incorrectly as the merge is at the talk page page for Talk:Japan Airlines flight 123 (note lower case f) which does not exist. The actual article is at Japan Airlines Flight 123. This article should be deleted as it's contents are already in the JAL 123 article. Elshad (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Elshad (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-There's no point in merging this article at all. People might want to visit this article to gain more insight on why the tail of this Boeing 747 plane fell off in JAL 123. JTZegers (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Bassivity Music. Consensus subject is not notable, redirecting per AtD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oneya[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable artist. Only 1 source provided.

The only source I found for his co-production of State of Mind is a Facebook post https://www.facebook.com/SAEInstituteBelgrade/photos/a.219612974717430/988070211205032/?type=1&theater.

Also, as of this nomination, this article has a whole range of unresolved tags such as {{BLP sources}}, {{COI}}, {{notability}}.

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think I'll call redirect to Bassivity Music for this one. Cannot find much independent coverage for him, except for tabloid stories about a feud with Rasta (singer). No such user (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to East Bengal Regiment. I have to discount the "per WP:MILUNIT" opinions: that is an essay, and it recognizes that sourcing is necessary. No sourcing has been proposed here. Sandstein 14:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

25th East Bengal Regiment[edit]

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

None of the content is sourced. The further reading is a passing mention in an officer's official biography that at some point in his career he was their commander. Searches of the usual types found nothing deeper than what seems to be a press release about a cake-cutting on the 43rd anniversary of their founding.[20] (in Bengali). Fails WP:MILUNIT. Worldbruce (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into East Bengal Regiment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In principle, I'm fine with merge as an alternative to deletion, but is it a good idea to merge unsourced content? --Worldbruce (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't fail MILUNIT, as it is an infantry battalion. However, whether it is independently notable outside the East Bengal Regiment is an open question, as I can't find any operations it has deployed on. I would suggest merge to East Bengal Regiment, but I can't even find confirmation this unit exists, or its supposed parent formation, the 55th Brigade. Could it be a hoax? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't fail WP:MILUNIT in the way that a smaller unit would. But the first sentence of the guideline reads "presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", which, as your searches confirm, it fails. There is the brief mention of the battalion in the further reading, so I don't think it's a hoax, but since sources haven't written anything of substance about it, I'm not sure what content we would merge. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its existence could be merged at least. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:MILUNIT, a large enough land force unit. The unit exists as the nom has already confirmed. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly passes WP:MILUNIT, but rename to 25th Battalion, East Bengal Regiment, which would seem to be its actual name in line with usual Commonwealth naming. Possible merge into East Bengal Regiment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into East Bengal Regiment or Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini; there really isn't enough for an independent article. If we find sources in the future then the redirect can be turned into a full article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it satisfies WP:MILUNIT. No harm in keeping a short stub. Nomian (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that Certainly passes for WP:MILUNIT , hope Shouldn't delete this article. NadDailyBn (talk) 06:08, 7 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. Sandstein 12:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toast (clothing)[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:ORG as a 'before’ search shows the company lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Not sure how an A7 or G11 would have turned out hence I decided to use the AFD process instead. Celestina007 20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 17:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anyone can create a redirect as a normal editing action. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Amalia of Nassau[edit]

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

The subject is a minor with no claim to independent notability. She is six, and all there is to say about her are four sentences. The most recent bit of information about her is that she was named. She is, unsurprisingly, only mentioned in passing by reliable sources when mentioning her parents, thus failing WP:GNG. She is not groomed or expected to succeed to the throne of her small nation, and instead lives abroad in privacy. Wikipedia should not be exposing a six-year-old when reliable sources do not do so. Surtsicna (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Princess Claire of Luxembourg, who definitely seems to be the more notable of her parents. There is only one source, a generic birth announcement. A search uncovered only unreliable royalty blogs, not anything that would cause this article to be kept, especially considering that she is still a minor. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Smeat75 (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a one source article on a 6-year-old. There is no reason why we should have such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How could someone's mere existence, reported by one tabloid, ever be considered encyclopedic? JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 17:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , per nom. Alex-h (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - she's fourth in line to the throne of a sovereign country, and has a small but real chance of becoming Grand Duchess some day. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 5 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. Anyone can create a redirect as a normal editing action. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Sibilla of Luxembourg[edit]

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

Having read the article, I struggle to determine what it is that is supposed to be making the subject notable. How does one even define her? Well, according to Wikipedia, what defines her is being "the wife of Prince Guillaume of Luxembourg". And who is this prince? The obscure younger brother of the figurehead ruler of a small nation in Western Europe.

The major source cited in this article, a Luxembourg royalty fan blog, says that her activities "aren't covered by the media and thus it is often hard to find news and updates about her". To me, that sounds like failing WP:GNG. Surtsicna (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources for this article are: a statement about the ambassadorship of André Aranha Corrêa do Lago, the husband of her sister Aliki, in which there is no mention of Aliki let alone Sibilla or Luxembourg; the Luxarazzi blog described by Surtsicna; another blog cited solely to support the statement Sibilla wore a Valentino gown at her wedding; and a bare image, purportedly of Sibilla at someone else's wedding. If even a BLP-impermissible SPS has trouble finding tabloid content on this person, an encyclopedia has no business covering her. JoelleJay (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comment above. Smeat75 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are almost to 1 million articles on living people, this is in part being propelled by our unwise allowance of articles on people with no real public function or notable action, and we need to turn the tide back.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per WP:OUTCOMES: consorts of reining sovereigns are always notable. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC) P.S. See User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how she can be considered the consort of a reigning sovereign, given her husband is not and will almost certainly never be the reigning sovereign. And anyway, what info would we even put in this article when all the current sources clearly violate BLP (SPS) and even they can't turn up anything? JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, she is not and has never been the consort of a sovereign. She is the wife of a sovereign's brother. Also, per WP:Notability (people), nobody is considered notable merely for being something. Everyone's notability is dependent upon significant coverage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete features very little that's not related to genealogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:40F8:9318:5ED5:A6C4 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 17:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince_Guillaume_of_Luxembourg per WP:CHEAP. I see that there is no consensus to keep, but a redirect of a spouse is acceptable. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forester Universe[edit]

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

A fictional setting. The sources cited do not indicate notability of the topic per WP:GNG. The article also mostly reads like a bibliography, and in that sense is redundant (WP:CFORK) to the article about the author, Kyell Gold, which already contains the bibliographical information. Sandstein 13:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 13:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources that discuss the fictional universe/books are from actual reliable sources, and the Ursa Major awards, which is really the only claim to notability being made here, are not a notable award itself. It could possibly be redirected to Kyell Gold, who may have some notability. Though even that is kind of questionable as his only real claim to legit notability is just being nominated for, but not winning, a notable award. Rorshacma (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a location that doesn't have enough sources to indicate notability. A redirect is a good idea as WP:ATD, to the author or a series article. Archrogue (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kyell Gold. Seems like this can be included there, through I am a bit concerned about possible WP:OR in the article. As for redirect, I'd like to see a reliable source first that uses this term. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Article is mostly a publication history which is duplicated at the author's page, and would be an acceptable redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Institute for the Moving Image[edit]

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

It is an interesting and worthy initiative, but it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG that I could establish. Boleyn (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails all forms of WP:N.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival for Cinema of the Deaf and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Flanders --Closeapple (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search did not find significant independent coverage that would show WP:GNG is met. Existing is not the same as being notable. Papaursa (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete shame though, as it looks dead interesting. ——Serial 16:08, 5 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. BD2412 T 01:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yama Kinkara[edit]

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

Non notable film, no online sources found other than links to sites streaming the film and film database sites. Tagged for notability for 4 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to WP:GNG and WP:NFILM concerns Spiderone 09:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 17:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. No prejudice against refunding to draft if sources should develop. BD2412 T 00:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalakar Awards[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG Princepratap1234 (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 09:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For such an old award, notability is indeed weak. Mohanabhil (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 17:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. Nika2020 (talk) 22:29, 6 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Ngodji[edit]

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

This article, though old, does not have reliable articles indicating the notability of the singer. I am leaving it here for further inputs ShopLeft (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to establish notability. Considering how poor our notability guidelines and article creation procedures were in the past, it at times almost seems that the older an article is the worse it is formatted. There are exceptions, but Wikipedia was a wild place before 2010, with more loose rules on creation and less oversight and most notability guidelines that existed then had been put in place before the damage of none had been done. Earlier this year I nominated an article dating back to 2004 that had no sources at all for deletion. Being on Wikipedia a long time is not in any way a sign of anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This article actually dates back to 2009. That is actually fairly recent by Wikipedia standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 3 millionth article in Wikipedia was created in August 2009. That means that by sheer number that is about the middle of Wikipedia's history. However this ignores the number of articles deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara D'Alterio[edit]

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

I cannot find independent coverage to establish that this actress meets the general notability guideline, and she has not had major roles in any sufficiently notable productions for that to establish her notability via the special criteria for entertaiers. The existing sources are: an archived casting listing from 2009 (a similar one is in the external links, also archived, from 2006; together they substantiate her acting credits and training, and the external links one has a birthdate—1979 rather than the so far as I can see unreferenced 1990 birthdate in the infobox, which I therefore comented out); and a fellow actor's blog that mentions her being in an independent film that was never released. (The image in the article is a tiny photograph from production of the same film, in which she is barely visible.) A search found no better source to add than this news article about the Dubai stop of the theatre tour where she was Beatrix Potter, the narrator. The fullest version of the article appears to have been this promotional-looking text, refined in the next few edits. I also looked at her online cv (not updated since 2017), which does not list Our Little Haven, another independent film for which a prize is mentioned on her main page; IMDb shows her about halfway down a long list of credits. None of the films she has appeared in appear to be notable, and she has had few starring parts in any case, and her theatre and TV work has made no impact that my search turned up. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because of not paying close enough attention I nominated this article for propsed delete accidentally two more times after the first time I did so, over what added up to a total of more than a year and a half. She clearly does not meet any notability guideline or pass GNG as Yngvadootir has very clearly nominated. I have to admit it would be nice if all AfD nominations were as in depth as the one above. To be fair the AfD above is longer than a large number of articles we have in Wikipedia, but that is its own issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martland Act[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All the sources refer to a proposed bill. This bill was never became law - it was introduced in the House of Representatives and went to a House Committee, where it died. https://www.countable.us/bills/hr4717-114-mandating-america-s-responsibility-to-limit-abuse-negligence-and-depravity-act/activity

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-114hr4717ih Rogermx (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! My mistake, just speed delete it. Dream Focus 23:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. We have all made mistakes here. It would have been notable. Rogermx (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the original editor's request. --Lockley (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G7. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the first source never even mentions this bill, the Fox News cite is -- by their own admission -- entertainment and not news, and the third is the only real source and that isn't enough. It was never passed, and is extremely unlikely to pass in the next three years. Not all proposed laws are automatically notable, because there are so many that get proposed and go into the trash bin of parliamentary tabling. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was speedy keep. The consensus to keep has been clearly established as there are reliable sources discussing subject of article sufficient enough to scale WP:GNG. No other contrary !vote or rationale, save for the nom can be observed hence this is going to be speedy kept. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 22:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Darkings[edit]

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

I requested to delete this article because seems like can't pass the GNG or WP:AnyBio. Feloniii (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD was malformed and not transcluded, which has just been fixed Danski454 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has references with coverage in Costa Rican newspapers like La Nación and La Prensa Libre. The nominator does not explain why these Spanish-language sources don't contribute to GNG. Is it because they're not in English? — Toughpigs (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: Unfortunately according to wp:BIO she is not notable and at this vase only sources are not enough. Feloniii (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Feloniii[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of coverage in apparently RS. PamD 08:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have million of actress but all of them are not notable, only sources not enough, according to wp:BIO, she is definitely is not notable. Feloniii (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Feloniii[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly notable based on cited RS in Spanish. Per WP:GNG "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." La Prensa Libre calls her "la reconocida presentadora de televisión y actriz" (the renowned television presenter and actress). This is one of three AfDs on notable women just filed by the nominator. The other two are Keren Bergman (Charles Batchelor Professor at Columbia University but "Sources seems like can't verify the notability of the article") and Guadalupe Urbina("It's seems like can't pass the wikipedia:BIO') HouseOfChange (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep i'm not sure the nom actually read the article. Praxidicae (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bad nomination, the subject of the article is obviously notable based on sigcov in RS. Easily passes WP:GNG Netherzone (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Multiple reliable sources identified thus passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 06:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strife (band)[edit]

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

Unsourced can't find any and Michig (talk · contribs) contested the PROD because no sources are available. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was an inappropriate prod, and when I deproded it I indicated where coverage can be found. This just seems WP:POINTy. --Michig (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently those locations are The Encyclopedia of Popular Music and AllMusic. This is the AllMusic bio. Five of the band's albums have a star rating and review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I deproded it, I indicated coverage in "The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Allmusic, several books". The books include Straight Edge: Hardcore Punk, Clean Living Youth, and Social Change (brief mention), and ETAT DES LIEUX DES MUSIQUES EXTREMES Les albums essentiels d’un demi siècle de transgression hard rock, metal, punk, hardcore & Co (more substantial coverage). There is further coverage from Billboard, Neue Westfälische Zeitung, Alternative Press, Exclaim!, and Metal Hammer. --Michig (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the coverage of the band in multiple reliable sources identified above which shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is no longer necessary imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 21:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lake Springs, California[edit]

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

Another subdivision entered into GNIS from "Welcome to Calaveras County and Western Alpine County". In this case I came across a homeowners association which says, "Blue Lake Springs is a family community located in Arnold, California, in California’s most scenic drives, the Highway 4 Ebbetts Pass Scenic Byway." There are a bunch of other references to it as a resort community, but nothing notable Mangoe (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Goldenrowley (talk) 20:59, 5 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 redirect to Green Eggs and Ham (TV series)#ep1. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here (Green Eggs and Ham)[edit]

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

PROD removed, WP:GNG hasn't been met. At present I can't see this notable outside of the main article of Green Eggs and Ham (TV series). Govvy (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing about this episode merits a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Eggs and Ham (TV series)#ep1 tagged with {{R from TV episode}} as a WP:CHEAP alternative to deletion. Episode redirects are quite common. Every source listed in the article as-is actually refers to the season as a whole, not this episode. Not sure if there were plans to try and create individual episode articles for the whole season, but more secondary coverage would probably be needed. -2pou (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 09:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum Carnage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A black metal band from Hawaii (!). Wow. When I thought I saw everything, there is always a surprise. Unfortunately though I think they are not notable for WP, I am doubtful of their notability. The sentences are also unsourced (for example, how do we know that their "Evil Never Dies" album was named the worst CD of 2006? Where's the source?) (Btw I checked out this band and I listened to some of their songs and in my opinion they deserve that "worst CD" award... :) But that's not the point here, sorry.) I searched "Magnum Carnage" through Google and I couldn't find anything besides the standard unreliable sites like databases, Wikipedia mirrors, trivial mentions/namechecks and stuff where the words are separated. So I came across stuff about the British hard rock band Magnum, the Spider-Man villain Carnage, the TV show Magnum, the Swedish death metal band Carnage, but there is very little coverage about MAGNUM CARNAGE. I have found some album reviews but they are featured on blog-like sites. The article also has a "multiple issues" tag which is not a good sign either. I searched for some of their albums but couldn't find anything besides databases, blogs and stuff where the words are separated (again). This is an underground band which makes no waves whatsoever even though they are active. They are among those I call the "underground of underground" because there is no coverage except in unreliable sites like blogs and forums. But no reliable media has ever noticed them. I have also found that this article has survived an AfD back in 2007, and it was kept for whatever reason. I actually think this band was never notable for Wikipedia. No coverage in reliable sources, no article. That's the rule. So I wonder how and why so many non-notable bands manage to stay on WP for such a long time. This article has also been sitting since 2007. Wow. Just wow. Sorry, I got carried away. To the point: yet another non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the band. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NBAND and the GNG. (And it's okay, GD100. There were a LOT of terrible Keep closes up until around 2008; the concept of notability -- as opposed to "It exists" was still evolving.) Ravenswing 01:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayuri Pandey[edit]

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

non-notable youtuber, no meaningful, in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG and 100k youtube followers doesn't pass WP:ENT on its own (See WP:YTN). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom --Devokewater @ 20:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of independant significant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about her. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:SNOW: we have deleted articles about YouTubers with up to THREE MILLION subscribers. The consensus is to require significant coverage to all such living persons, without exception. Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability is merely an essay, but like WP:HAMMER, is accepted by a large number of Wikipedians like me. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Dragunsky[edit]

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

Largely uncited WP:BIO that has some potential errors e.g. it states that in 1977 he was designated as the chair of the Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet Public, but that organisation only came to existence in 1983. Nicnote^{say hello!}_contribs 17:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - needs to be re-written, but completely notable. Deletion would leave Dragunsky the only person awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union (Soviet equivilant to the medal of honor) twice without an article. I have long intended to clean up every article in the list, but haven't gotten to it yet since it existed already and isn't a one sentence stub. Dragunsky is mentioned in a plethora of Russian language sources that will be added to the article. Also, it is NOT a BLP, he died in 1992. Innacuraccies can easily be removed and corrected, sources can be replaced with better ones, but that doesn't change the fact that he was one of less than 200 people awarded the title HSU twice and that deletion would make him the ONLY twice HSU without an article (despite him not being less notable than everyone else on the list).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @PlanespotterA320: This article has tagged for sourcing since 2012! If you can help, please do. Nicnote^{say hello!}_contribs 17:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nicnote: Being deficient in sourcing does not automatically render a subject non-notable. It is physically possible for the most notable of articles to lack good sourcing. None of which makes them less notable. Calling in the article rescue squad because you want a stub expanded and rewritten is an abuse of the AFD process. This article clearly does not meet the criteria for deletion, and you should never have nominated it for deletion in the first place. Please stop wasting my time asking me to improve the article - yes, I will, eventually. But I expect you to withdraw the deletion ASAP before I get down to buisiness and write a single paragraph. Because of your manipulative behavior here by hoping that causing panic would get the article more attention and result in improvements, I will have to de-prioritize this article in my to-do list to discourage future repeat offenses.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Dragunsky is notable per WP:GNG and WP:MILPEOPLE with significant coverage in Russian sources, being a colonel general, and relatively rare double Hero of the Soviet Union, his country's highest honorary title. AfD is not cleanup. Kges1901 (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG (article has plenty of references), and WP:MILPERSON, awarded Hero of the Soviet Union, soviet union's highest honor, not once but twice (only 154 double recipients)!! ps. i note that the article did not have a notability concern tag (see here), but rather, a "article needs editing tag" ie. " includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations.", a reminder to nominators WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Kges1901. Double HSU so definitely notable!! May need some amendments though. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Per WP:SOLDIER, WP:GNG and WP:SNOW. Being a recipient of the Hero of the Soviet Union (twice!) makes the subject notable. That the article needs a lot of work is not a criterion for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 09:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snwazna Adams[edit]

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

I put this up for proposed deletion because it is clearly not even close to any level of notability. The fact that such got overturned is just one more part of the unbalanced situation at Wikipedia where it is several times easier to create an article than to get rid of one. This has 1 source that is a PR release, one source that is facebook, which is totally and completely not secondary, independent nor reliable, and one source that is just a photo on the website of the organization that Adams won a competition with. None of these things come even remotely close to at all meeting GNG, which in turn requires multiple reliable sources that meet its requirement. This is a biography of a living person that has absolutely no reliable sourcing at all, which is what we are supposed to be proposed deletion because under our rules we can say nothing about the subject. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: winning an obscure pageant is not an indicator of notability. Does not meet WP:MODEL / WP:BASIC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - she was a contestant at the highest levels of modeling, such as Miss Universe. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NMODEL, and no evidence she meets the GNG. I'm mildly surprised there aren't any SNGs conferring presumptive notability on Miss Universe contestants, but the fact is there aren't. Ravenswing 01:53, 9 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 Withdrawn. The nominator withdrew this AfD. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 04:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is not just Tehran[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability Lexy iris (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't read Farsi, but this BBC news item (cited in the article) links to an article in Kayhan that it describes as using the phrase "Iran is not just Tehran". I checked some of the other sources in the article and I don't think this one really passes muster (more impressionistic than anything). But this from The Independent (almost certainly WP:RS) and this English-language piece from Iran Book News Agency (unclear if WP:RS, but if we treat it as a primary source it's useful to back up the claim that the phrase is used) do check out. This book published by Princeton University Press also checks out. I think we have WP:THREE here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I withdraw my nomination. Lexy iris (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very catchy phrase that turned out to be used in common speech in Iran after almost 80 years. Even sources in English tend to use it every now and then (Aside from Lonely Planet guidebooks, here are a few examples: The Times [21], ambassador of Australia to Iran [22], The Daily Beast [23], or this recent story from Reuters [24]), let alone hundreds of Persian-language sources. There are articles for slogans such as Remember Pearl Harbor, Épater la bourgeoisie, Dios, rey y patria for the same reason. Pahlevun (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems a useful bit of knowledge. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs[edit]

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

This is a stub article that is not likely to grow because such clinical trials are essentially WP:PRIMARY and it is not likely that reliable WP:MEDRS-quality secondary sources about such trials are going to be created. I note right now that the article is dominated by sources which fail WP:MEDRS for the most part. There is nothing worth keeping. jps (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A magnet for listing crap studies that report statistical noise as proof that cow urine and toxic metals actually cure something. Pretty much cannot be MEDRS-compliant by its very nature. The Cancer Research UK source may be useful elsewhere though. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to Ayurveda with the NIH statement there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources are about Ayurveda in general with only limited information on the trials specifically, so the subject does not seem to be notable in its own right. If the content gets to long in the parent article in can be split out then. Seems a bit long for a search term but I am indifferent on it being a redirect.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; I'm not convinced that the title is a plausible search term, but if we are to have a redirect with this title, I'd rather not have a bunch of WP:MEDRS violations cluttering the page history and risking re-expansion. XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the general notability guideline. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear attempt to establish a non-neutral article on Ayurveda. Per the above, compliance with WP:MEDRS is impossible essentially meaning there are no reliable sources. PainProf (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a creator, I had found this article useful so had created. But will go as per consensus here. Thank you. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; creator has consented to deletion meaning this could now be a speedy delete Spiderone 14:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH, WP:CCC, and WP:SNOW. Wikipedia has avoided merely publishing United States government meta-studies, and this article is a prime example of why we all agree. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Western Symphony casts[edit]

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

There are multiple revivals danced by multiple companies since the ballet's premiere, with at least two casts each, while this article only listed the original cast and New York City Ballet revivals in 2008 without any sources. Corachow (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these pages only listed the original cast and revivals between 2008 and 2010 without any sources:

Corachow (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and expand, if they are incomplete. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. At first these pages look like good candidates for a merge: even if List of La valse casts is not notable, surely the information therein would be welcome in a section of La valse. However, the lack of sources and directory-like structure of these pages means a merge would not improve the main article. In general, I don't think there are any good sources for ballet casts; while reviews can attest to notability of a performance, full cast lists are harder to come by. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I haven't looked extensively but I'd be willing to put up money that all of these were created by User:Robertgreer who added an EXTREME amount of cruft relating to ballets and especially the New York City Ballet. Because of the subject matter almost no one ever really noticed, but the issue is far beyond these articles here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: You'd win your bet, @Melodia:. For my part, these fail LISTN, and they'd form UNDUE additions to the respective main articles. As BenKuykendall, full cast lists are very hard to come by. Ravenswing 01:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 21:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Nell[edit]

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

Non-notable radio presenter - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about him. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, per WP:BIO - only sources I could find for the term "Ed Nell" were Italian news articles and had nothing to do with the person. Seagull123 Φ 12:15, 6 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 redirect to Dragons of Kir. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1i Productions[edit]

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

This is clearly a non-notable subject. The few sources in the article are either primary or to an online message board. Which doesn't pass WP:NCORP's notability guidelines. Adamant1 (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Suggest that the end action be redirection to Dragons of Kir. None of the citations associated with the current article are about the production firm itself; they are only about the products of the firm. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragons of Kir. Almost no coverage can be found except for boardgame geek listing that they made two games, and only one has an article. Because of the boardgame geek listing, I find that it is within the realm of possibility for someone to search for. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragons of Kir. Topic not independently notable, fails WP:NCORP, redirect is sensible. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 21:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Celebrity Family Feud episodes[edit]

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? UK episodes

Articles for deletion/List of Hollywood Game Night episodes

Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal Special shows

Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) episodes

Articles for deletion/List of Figure It Out episodes

Articles for deletion/List of BrainSurge episodes

Articles for deletion/List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes

Articles for deletion/List of My Family's Got Guts episodes

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

Overwhelming precedent that episode lists of game shows do not meet WP:EPISODE, WP:N and WP:IINFO guidelines. Television and ratings falls under WP:ALS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Article does not contain information that meets guidelines in WP:EPISODE (specifically, "Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory.") This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses that is appropriate to be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a television game show episode do not meet WP:GNG. AldezD (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't like the cited noms where it's just game show cruft overall. This is a separate broadcast primetime series where this breakout is completely justified as the series easily passes WP:BROADCAST. The reason for those deletions for the cited articles was due to those articles having overdetail, including game results and textwall novels about every round played, which we have none of here. This is just WP:TV bog-standard listings of episode titles, airdates, production codes and ratings with proper sourcing done for each episode (though it could honestly do with some blue-linking of each 'family' team). Nate • (chatter) 22:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia does not have precedents. Each AFD is determined by whatever random people show up to participate and the personal bias of the closing administrator. The list of "related" AFDs you list don't have anything to do with this at all, they all discussions from 2010 to 2014. Your debate can't be "Hey! An article about a different game show's episodes got deleted ten years ago! We have a precedent!" When episode lists are too long to fit in the main article, a spinout article is the standard way to do things. This list the ratings for each episode, that valid information. Dream Focus 01:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Dream Focus. This is a standard type of spinoff page for a notable television show. There are no fictional synopses, as the nominator points out, but the episode titles contain the names of the contestants, which is encyclopedic content. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Everything that needs said is said above. // Timothy :: talk 16:16, 5 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. There is a clear consensus that this should not exist in article space; however, moving it to draft space would merely create a duplicate of the existing Draft:Luca (upcoming film), which already fulfills the purpose of having a draft. BD2412 T 00:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luca (2021 film)[edit]

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

Does not satisfy film notability guidelines. In particular, the future film guidelines state that unreleased films are only notable if production is itself notable. This draft says nothing about production, only that the film has been announced. As such, this article is purely promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is it in fact possible that the film won't be released until a year like 2027?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. While it might not be notable now (normally animated films like these are in production for years before they're released), it will be notable in the near future, and this seems like a good enough start. El Millo (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, it's too soon. The only sourced content is a short premise and a scheduled release date. This information can certainly be represented in another article. I don't know which one, but it does not need its own article yet. BOVINEBOY2008 22:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft, per above reasons, as it is too soon for a mainspace article. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was put into both article space and draft space, so that nominating it for deletion was the only procedure to deal with it not being ready for article space. As nominator, I do not disagree with draftification. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOTPROMOTION, and WP:TOOSOON, no guarantee that this project will go ahead. ps. agree with nom that this should not be draftified. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's Pixar. Valkyrie Red (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - Definitely too soon to make. However, the page should not be deleted, as it will just have to be remade when the film does come out. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence this is far enough into production to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If we delete the article, it will just have to be recreated when the film comes out. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL anyone? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that only applies to unsourced stuff. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The logo are oficially released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinha70 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Official artwork has been released.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an officially announced movie by one of the largest, most famous, and most prestigious animation studios in the world, to be released by the end of next year. I would say this is fully notable as its own article. -Navarre0107 (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft - It is too soon to be an article but given it is Pixar it should not be deleted.--Filmgirlfannn (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to little information. Starzoner (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, the way this AFD discussion has gone, it's probably gonna close as No Consensus. Foxnpichu (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's the point? It's made now and out there. Voicebox64 (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is no substance in the votes here. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON apply. This was announced 8 days ago. It's not even scheduled for release for a full year and in the age of COVID in the US, it's entirely possible it might be scrapped. Until filming has finished or you know, commenced, it is way too soon. Praxidicae (talk) 11:57, 7 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Workers' Revolutionary Party (Mexico, 1999)[edit]

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

Unsourced article, barely independent from the parent article. Fails WP:GNG. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 16:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 16:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 16:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being unsourced is not a valid deletion rationale, unless the article is a WP:BLP. Article passes WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, as examples here: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] --Soman (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG: "not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources."
Is not about the party. It is an event concerning Trotsky's death aniversary + some comments by Édgar Sánchez about where leftist parties's ideologies should focus on.
Is about the party asking for money to the Guerrero Government for alleged community improvements.
Is just about the party being a member of the Socialist Alliance (Mexico) not the party itself (i.e. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" per GNG)
Is about, allegedly, nominating Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas as their candidate for the 2000 Mexican general election, and I say allegedly because the PRT was never a member of the es:Alianza por México (2000).
Starts with a text about the 1970s party and ideology and later seems to mix it with the 1999 version of the PRT.
@Soman: If you think these sources can create an article, go ahead and do it, because these sources serve no purpose here and I still reading a non-notable stub about an alleged notable political party. None of these sources create a real context, they merely prove the party exists and has attempted do be politically active. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 19:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plain non-notable based on the referencing on the page and during this discussion. There was another Workers' Revolutionary Party (Mexico). That one looks like a group of imposters. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. As above, sources only indicate that the party exists rather than giving evidence of achievements prior to, or during, election campaigns. Usefulness is not a valid reason for retaining an article. doktorb _words^deeds 07:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Unfortunately, none but the nominator believe this article is non-notable; one editor was undecided but stated that the soucing appeared "acceptable", even if the content was "decidedly promotional". That can be dealt with. ——Serial 14:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) ——Serial 14:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Nailogical[edit]

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

Very unclear what is intended to be notable here. Various claims to YouTube subscriber numbers but, despite prompting several times, no sources have surfaced. Having a day job and another hobby/ occupation is hardly notable. Sources provided are very weak and look to be self promotional/ paid for content/ press releases etc . Nothing of any weight. Searches reveal more of the same but no RSs . For a BLP we need multiple independent and reliable sources. This meets none of those criteria. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. MacLean's article legitimizes subscriber count of almost 7 million and is an in-depth article from a reliable source with no connection to Rotenberg. Coverage in Ottawa Citizen for her podcast (doesn't appear to be self-promotion. though it isn't in-depth, it isn't trivial coverage either). Coverage in Tube Filter and AOL about her nail polish brand (the AOL source is from many months after the brand's launch, so its unlikely its a press-release sort of thing). This plus the not in-depth but definitely non-trivial coverage in VICE means the article almost certainly meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Subscriber count indicates meeting criteria 2 of WP:ENT by having a fanbase of 7 million and originating the "100 coats" trend indicates meeting criteria 3 of WP:ENT and criteria 2 of WP:CREATIVE as well. Samsmachado (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the AOL source and the Tubefilter sources are both out-and-out advertisement. Whether paid for or from a press release isn't immediately clear but even down to prices for various items. Absolutely no independence there. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's common practice to list prices for items when writing an article about those items/a new company that produced them. To not do so when discussing a new brand would be an error in journalism as it would not describe the price point and intended audience of that brand. They are not out-and-out advertisements as neither article discloses that they are advertisements. Your assertion of these being non-independent sources is purely conjecture. Please provide evidence. Samsmachado (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - sources seem acceptable but content looks decidedly promotional to me. Deb (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The article needs clean-up but there are enough RS to establish notability. Citrivescence (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Corachow (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vagelos Program in Life Sciences and Management[edit]

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

This program appears to be non-notable on its own outside of University of Pennsylvania College of Arts & Sciences. I suggest it is deleted and merged into that article as a small paragraph in that article and we delete this article which in addition to being non-notable independently, is also promotional in nature. Thanks for your consideration and volunteerism. Missvain (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NCORP as there is little to nothing on the subject independent of the school and its employees. The real coverage of these programs is the philanthropy by P. Roy Vagelos, which is where that story should be covered. The school has used employees to write content on wiki although not all have disclosed such, so I'll leave it to them to ~~promote themselves~~ handle that merge. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Aggregate to pages for each country by decade, or whatever else is appropriate, and then redirect. An argument could be made for deleting the redirects, but that's a trivial matter. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syria national football team results 2009[edit]

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

These results lists are already part of much larger ones and serve little purpose. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they should be merged into new articles along the lines of England national football team results (2000–19), no evidence of notability needing separate years, although OP is politely reminded that bundling so many articles is not useful, and I was very close to arguing for a procedural keep on that basis... GiantSnowman 14:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles are already merged like the England list you mentioned. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the Syrian articles are not needed as the results are under Syria national football team results (2010–19) and those two should be deleted however, some of these are unclear and combining these articles into one mass AfD is not helpful. I might say procedure keep, simply because of the quantity to review. Govvy (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the articles have already been merged into each national team's results pages and the separate year results pages were created after them. (Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan). KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - if merged, just redirect them. We don't need an AFD debate, or to delete the redirects and page history. Nfitz (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Pfeifer[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE source searches are not providing significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. The subject has been a co-author of some academic work that has been cited, but the citation rate is rather low at 55 for one paper, and more impressive at 489 for another; the subject has an H-index of 2 (link). Overall, it does not appear that WP:NACADEMIC is met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not first or last author, so even those citations don't really count. Probably family memorial page. Definitely fails academic criteria. PainProf (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I agree with PainProf that middle author on a paper with moderately high citations (but without much other paper output) is not a pass of WP:NPROF. He's also a coauthor of The Evolution of Modern Vascular Surgery, which has at least one review [30]. One book is not generally a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. The combined case still seems to me to be a ways away from being sufficient to keep. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:CLERGY. Based on what's discussed above, he just hasn't' had an impact in the literature. He also hasn't held a named chair at a major research university. Co-writing a single text book is not sufficient unless it's been used and reviewed widely. Finally, being "President" of a "stake" is not a high clerical position in the LDS; it's roughly equivalent to a being Dean or Monsignor in liturgical Christian churches. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 5 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skyhigh, California[edit]

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

Yet another Calaveras County subdivision, this one courtesy of the topo maps. Again, I can find nothing else about it besides the location and the rough era of its construction; there are some references to Skyhigh as a place, but they all appear to be in other counties. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Brown Montgomerie-Fleming[edit]

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

The subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:MILPERSON. Less Unless (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, completely non-notable person. Mztourist (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim of notability. But we pause for a moment to remember.
♫ The sun shines down on these green fields of France

♫ The warm wind blows gently and the red poppies dance

♫ The trenches have vanished under the plough

♫ No gas, no barbed wire, no guns firing now

♫ But here in this graveyard it's still No Man's Land

♫ The countless white crosses in mute witness stand

♫ To man's blind indifference to his fellow man

♫ And a whole generation who were butchered and damned

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- completely NN. The article cited looks as if it is part of a project to compile or collect military obituaries. We should not encourage the use of such to create WP articles. We had a similar problem a while back over German WWII Knight's cross awardees. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MIL - truly sadly, a whole generation was cut down in the Great War. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umut Gundogdu (artist)[edit]

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

completely non-notable musician, sourced entirely to interviews, promo, pr and black hat SEO sources. Seriously, check out "billboard musik" Praxidicae (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician sourced to non-reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are not sufficient enough to guarantee his notability. There's an issue of conflict of interest here as well, as if the article was written by someone close to the subject. Keivan.f^Talk 22:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found the following sources: [31], [32], [33], [34] a list of his songs [35], a list of songs of the group with a small bio [36] and another source of dailymusicroll.com that for some reason triggered the protection filter. The thing is though that I haven't heard about these websites before. It will be better if someone that closely follows the music industry checks them out. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 08:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Desalvo (band). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Grant (musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. I don't see any significant coverage that indicates notability outside of Idlewild and Desalvo, so would support a redirect to either of those locations. Isn't notable enough for an article on his own. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem to be independently notable as a musician. Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Desalvo (band) his main band, as not independently notable in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Atlantic306 to Desalvo (band). In his first band, he was a touring musician to take over for another; we have almost always deleted or redirected such musicians. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 5 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 redirect to Cleto and the Cletones. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Dresel[edit]

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

Should be redirected to Cleto and the Cletones - fails GNG and NMusician. He is a member of Jimmy Kimmel's house band, but is not independently notable. Sourcing is very weak. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SNOW; we usually redirect back-up members of otherwise notable house bands. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Gómez Palapa[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL // Timothy :: talk 14:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and searched ofr some sources but nothing about him CreativeNorth (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about the WP:NFOOTY, per this source currently in the article? --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - does meet NFOOTBALL, as shown by this source which is already on the article (click 'Estadística Clubes' and you'll see many appearances listed in the 'Segunda División', which is Ascenso MX and is listed at WP:FPL). Article needs improving, not deleting. If my understanding of Mexican football is wrong please ping me... Giant Snowman 14:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as per GS. Played in both Liga MX and the Ascenso MX, which are both listed at FPL. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass any reasonable understanding of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about the WP:NFOOTY? An article can fail the GNG and still be notable if it makes a WP:SNG --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly per GiantSnowman. As shown here, the dude played in Liga MX among other leagues, which is listed as a professional league here.--Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article about footballer who played several seasons in a fully-pro league (Liga MX). He played sparingly, and there is very little in-depth Spanish-language coverage available online (the Crónica reference in the article is the only in-depth coverage I can find). Thus, it's a pretty weak keep, but I suspect there is better coverage in offline Spanish-language sources. Jogurney (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is false, as had 8 appearances in the Primera División de México Clausura 2003 and 2 appearances in the Copa Libertadores - haven't checked other seasons, but easily meets NFOOTY and massive WP:BEFORE failure. Nfitz (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal de Chevron-Villette[edit]

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

It is high time we purged Wikipedia of genealogical entries such as this one. The subject of this article does not seem to have been featured in any reliable sources other than genealogical publications. Surtsicna (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the family she married into was removed from power 65 years before her birth. There is nothing covering her that comes even remotely close to rising to the GNG level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comment above. Totally agree with both, we need to get rid of genealogies about members of deposed ruling families. Smeat75 (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1/3 of this article's sources is to a bare photograph hosted on a blog... JoelleJay (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 17:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd normally say to redirect consorts, but this one has such little available to verify anything about her. She's not been in any major scandals nor major philanthropies. She had her picture taken with some people of ill repute, but nothing out of the ordinary. The only fundraising I can find is here. She apparently did some work with Pompeii's restoration, but the coverage was in passing. Redirect if you want to help royalty fans to find her husband's article. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 5 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. While the "keep" arguments are made in good faith, most of them end up demonstrating that this person does not meet the relevant notability standard, and I'm just not seeing a strong IAR argument to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Rosen (chess player)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No change in notability since this article was last deleted (pinging all participants in that discussion: @Brightgalrs, Grapefruit17, Clarityfiend, Capogreco, and SportingFlyer:). Does not meet WP:NCHESS, and I cannot find any non-routine coverage in reliable independent sources that would satisfy WP:GNG. 50k Twitch followers and 100k Youtube subscribers is fairly WP:Run-of-the-mill these days. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full disclosure, I originally wrote this article, but I would argue that Rosen meets WP:ENT. Within the chess community, he is a well-known figure. With that being said, his following could be considered WP:Run-of-the-mill. Therefore, my keep recommendation is based largely on his meeting WP:SPORTSPERSON. Rosen competed in the 2019 US Blitz Open and 2013 World Blitz Open. He also won the 2011 K-12 National Championship, a feat that I would argue satisfies WP:SPORTSPERSON on its own. Two sources to show that Rosen is notable under WP:SPORTSPERSON: One Two AviationFreak💬 17:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that winning a high school national championship automatically confers notability. WP:SPORTSPERSON says and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and I'm just not seeing that coverage. See WP:YOUNGATH, which specifically excludes local coverage and sports-specific publications when determining the notability of high school athletes. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: I linked two instances of coverage in my response to support WP:SPORTSPERSON, I'm sure there are more beyond those. Rosen also won with a perfect score of 7-0 in 2011, which is unusual. The sources I listed above both constitute "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject." They are not mentioning him in passing or WP:ROUTINE. They are about him. AviationFreak💬 04:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Skokie Review source strikes me as marginal since their interest in him is that he was originally from Skokie. The USChess source is almost legit, but the link to it doesn't work any more -- could you find one that does? I say "almost" because OF COURSE US Chess is going to post an article about the winner(s) of a tournament they hold. I don't think this by itself is good enough. They have had many high school champions over the years, most of whom don't meet Wiki notability standard. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For his competitive achievements, you should be looking at WP:NCHESS rather than WP:SPORTSPERSON, and he clearly does not meet that. As I said below: lots and lots of kids get press coverage when they win junior events. He needs to meet WP:ENT (which I am not qualified to comment on), or at least a combination of "almost" WP:ENT and "almost" WP:NCHESS. Adpete (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning a high school anything never is an automatic sign to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an International Master (the title just below Grandmaster), Rosen is close to the WP:NCHESS standard. As an ubiquitous figure in the online chess community, I think he meets the WP:ENT standard. Krakatoa (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we shouldn't be judging notability by playing strength; that is one reason why WP:NCHESS is such a touchy subject with some chess editors. But in any case, shame on you for trying to pass off, on an audience of perhaps less experienced chess players, the notion that IM is "close" enough to GM. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many IM's; there are many chess journalists; there are many online personalities in chess. Not easy to stand out in this crowd. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per AviationFreak. He has received some coverage, including winning the National Chess Championship, earning the FIDE Master title and winning the Challengers Choker Cup Finals. With these reliable sources and the ones indicated above, the article is good enough to meet WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:ENT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He was National schools champion, not national champion. Lots (and I mean LOTS) of kids get in the news for winning junior sports events, and that does not make them notable. He fails the notability guidelines WP:NCHESS as a player alone, because he is neither a GM, nor a national (open age) champion, nor a participant at a major event. He perhaps meets WP:ENT, and his notability or otherwise hinges on that. Adpete (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSPERSON does not supersede WP:GNG -- it says right on the page that meeting it does not guarantee that a subject should be included, and refers back to WP:NSPORTS. The triblocal source is, as the URL implies, local coverage, and is therefore explicitly excluded by the WP:YOUNGATH section of WP:NSPORTS. Northstarnews is a school newspaper, which is also explicitly excluded by WP:YOUNGATH. The Challengers Choker Cup is a non-notable competition (I fail to see how a competition that isn't notable enough to have it's own article can confer notability on its winners), which is described by it's creator Chess24 as This Challengers Choker Cup is for entertainment and just for fun. The Gutshotmagazine article only makes passing references to Rosen, offering a play-by-play of the matches instead of mentioning anything at all about Rosen himself other than his name. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 06:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is only a week old and it's already getting over 40 views per day, more than the judge and playwright of the same name combined.[37] There's something notable about him, and if our readers want more information about him, there's no reason we shouldn't provide it. Station1 (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:POPULARPAGE, just because an article is popular does not mean it is within the project scope. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 06:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The rest of that sentence is: although article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability which should then be straightforward to verify. Station1 (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an International Master he plays chess to a very high standard, but that is not by itself enough to justify an article. He does not meet NCHESS (not a part of NSPORTS but a useful guide nonetheless) and I cannot find the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet GNG. Having 100,000 YouTube subscribers does not mean he is notable as a chess coach.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rosen has been covered significantly in independent reliable sources:

All of these sources are reliable, independent, and do not mention Rosen only in passing. AviationFreak💬 19:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those all seem to be either local papers or the USCF reporting on one of its own events. I'm not convinced that's sufficient. P-K3 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His chess achievements are not notable (WP:NCHESS), neither is his youtube channel. Sophia91 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - this badly fails WP:GNG. The fact we're trying to save this with a school newspaper only underlines that fact. (The Chicago Tribune article is okay, but it's a local feature story.) Also, WP:SPORTSPERSON is written in a way which presumes there will be qualifying coverage, and there's not. SportingFlyer T·C 07:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eric Rosen is an very well known chess player who consistently streams on twitch and posts on youtube. Easily getting over 100k views on his videos that can reach up to over an hour in length. As stated previously he has been covered to a large extent by reliable sources. And his wiki page should stay as it is and continue to be updated in more languages. 00:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsLovold (talk • contribs)
Keep per AviationFreak, Krakatoa, ASTIG, Station1 and LarsLovold. The links to sources provided by AviationFreak at 19:44, 4 August above are convincing. Furthermore, Rosen's entry in the notoriously strict German Wikipedia has existed since October 2019 and is supported by 13 inline cites. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Antoine of Bourbon-Two Sicilies[edit]

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

I see no sources, either in the article or on the web, that could satisfy WP:GNG and prove the notability of the subject. The only reason Wikipedia has an article about this Antoine is because his great-grandfather was a king in southern Italy; but Antoine was an engineer living in France with his wife and children and minding his business. He is so obscure that I doubt we can even verify that he used the titles accorded to him by genealogical publications and, disconcertingly, Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, obscure member of royal house which was deposed back in 1860 as part of the unification of Italy. PatGallacher (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sweboi (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicates notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources that aren't genealogy books are SPS. JoelleJay (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess Elisabeth of Württemberg (b. 1933)[edit]

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

She got one fanciful title from her father and another from her husband. There is no indication that she uses either. It is impossible to verify whether she and her family use the titles accorded to them by Wikipedia and genealogical publications; impossible, because reliable sources other than these genealogical publications do not cover them. And if the sole notability of this woman is her place in a family tree, the article should not exist. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:NOTINHERITED. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again more cruft about someone whose supposed titles come from states which ceased to exist before she was even born, and who married after the abolition of nobility in Italy. PatGallacher (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the other comment above. Smeat75 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a geneological database for any royal houses, let alone for members of royal houses that have been out of power for over a century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another article that defines a woman's notability based on who her family and husband are. And all two sources are SPS, one deprecated. JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my standards. I can't find any hint of scandal, nor any charity work, that she was involved in. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Jérôme Napoléon[edit]

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

Jérôme Napoléon is a librarian and a brother of the claimant to Napoleon's legacy and he is not notable as either. He lives with his wife in Switzerland, goes to work, and minds his own business. Reliable sources do not cover him, and therefore neither should Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. Smeat75 (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete members of an imperial house that has been out of power for a longer time than the time from when it first came to power to when it was last kicked out of power are not at all notable by default.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't even know if he is a librarian! No reliable sources supporting that either. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and my standards. Searches online have found nothing. He seems to have tried very hard to stay out of both scandal rags and social pages. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Caroline Napoléon[edit]

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

She is someone's daughter, stepdaughter, sister, half-sister, wife, and mother. She is the daughter of someone who claims a non-existent throne but cannot claim it herself. Alright. Where is the notability? I cannot find any coverage in reliable sources pointing to notability. Surtsicna (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. Smeat75 (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being listed in a royal genealogy book does not make one notable. JoelleJay (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a genealogical database for long deposed royal houses. As in this house was out of power 110 years before her birth, and she is now 40. It will have been out of power for more than twice the length of her life unless she lives to be over 110.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of independent notability, and far removed from distinguished ancestors. --GRuban (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and my standards. She's a princess who's tried very hard to avoid any hint of a scandal. I've found some evidence online that she's been involved in charitable work, and she gets passing mentions every few years for attending some royal wedding, but she's not a big socialite. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 21:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne-Françoise Valliccioni[edit]

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

The entire article is about the effect her marriage has had on her husband's claim to a non-existent throne. All of that can be said in the article about her husband. The subject herself does not appear in reliable sources available to me online, so I conclude that she is not notable enough for an entry in an encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being married to someone who claims to be the proper head of an Imperial House that was deposed longer ago than the time from its first assenscion to its last deposition is not at all a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone defined entirely by the pseudo-historical implications of their marriage is not notable. JoelleJay (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Lucia of Bourbon-Two Sicilies[edit]

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

Nothing in the article points to notability. I can find no significant coverage of the subject online, and her sole significance seems to have been genealogical. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, however, not a genealogy database. Surtsicna (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine genealogy and deposed monarchy material. As far as I can make out she wasn't a princess of the Two Sicilies, this state having ceased to exist before she was born, and she was only a duchess for about 10 years, before the abolition of nobility in Italy. If we do retain this article it should be edited to reflect this. PatGallacher (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Smeat75 (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources given are thepeerage.com (deprecated) and an old angelfire SPS. JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to passing any reasonable notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to be able to write more about someone than: was born, married, died. That's worth a line in House_of_Bourbon-Two_Sicilies#Princesses_of_the_Two_Sicilies_(since_1816), but not a standalone article. --GRuban (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and my standards. I looked deeply into the Internet, and found some references in blogs such as this about her wedding, and about her tiara, but that's it. She published a book of her drawings. For better or worse, she's avoided both scandal rags and socialite pages. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 21:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Paradigm Broadcast Network[edit]

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

NN proposed "network," fails the GNG, WP:CORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and just about any notability criterion you might imagine. It's not even so much that I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing the subject; it's that there are so few G-hits as to make the Wikipedia maintenance category listing this (it's been notability tagged for over a decade) one of the top hits! Something I've never seen before, and which leads me to suspect this "network"/article was a scam. Created by an SPA with no other Wikipedia edits. Ravenswing 12:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 12:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up items like this that discusses, with no depth, a network that is going to happen, but it hasn't, even its website, http://www.npbn.com/, is "proposed", it doesn't work. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May Gosioco[edit]

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

Borderline hoax about an utterly non-notable individual. Praxidicae (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined a speedy since there were plenty of assertions of notable performances, but I proposed deletion as the sourcing didn’t mention the subject. With that content removed, there is little here beyond a resumé. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she was one of three people cast in a particular role at a production of a play by a university. That is not at all even remotely a claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about her. Easily fails WP:BIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Mann (comedian)[edit]

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

NN comedian, fails the GNG and WP:BIO. A search for reliable sources turns up Wiki mirrors, YouTube clips, Facebook, Twitter, podcasts, promotional sites, blogs and the usual array of "Appearing at X on Friday," but is devoid of the significant coverage in reliable sources the GNG requires. Notability tagged for over a decade. Created by a SPA with no other Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 11:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 12:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing as its stands does not add up to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc and Hinokitiol synergism[edit]

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

Fails WP:MEDRS, based on primary research and press releases only. Likely part of a UPE campaign, see User_talk:RexxS#Hinokitiol Spicy (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've just worked through the article removing biomedical content sourced to news reports and primary sources. There are only two sentences left, neither of which have an bearing on the alleged topic. This is another attempt by a company to insert promotional material using undisclosed paid editors. --RexxS (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An almost hilariously misinformed article, their own data demonstrating the compound is useless. The misinformation about the coronavirus is an aggravating factor. The user could be warned of potential sanctions. No reliable sources does not meet WP:GNG PainProf (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Any redirect to Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria is a matter for editors. Sandstein 12:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Sofía, Duchess of Calabria[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability. Virtually all online coverage of the subject comes from genealogy websites, and indeed Wikipedia's article about her amounts to nothing more than a genealogical entry. Since the subject utterly fails WP:GNG, I do not think Wikipedia should cover her. Surtsicna (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify. I think may be some maintenance tags might be better, if it's to be kept. Regards (F5pillar---/ ^{Hey wassup🖋📩}) 10:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but why? Is there a significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources? Surtsicna (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I am not seeing too many reliable sources attesting to her notability. Being a member of royalty, contrary to what has been proposed in the past on the matter, does not automatically confer notability to the subject. I will, however, note the similarities between this article and that of the (male) Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria and, more importantly, her predecessor, Princess Anne, Duchess of Calabria. A full list of subjects deemed notable can be found on Duchess of Calabria#Titular Duchess of Calabria. When you go to List of consorts of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies#Spanish line claim, 1960–present, Princess Sofía redirects to Prince Pedro's article. I'm at a weak delete because of the number of highly similar articles to this one. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 16:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She is the consort to the Head of the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. While children might not be, IMO consorts and heads of houses (whether sovereigns or formerly so) are notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether she is the consort to the head of the house is disputed but in any case, her relationship to a notable individual cannot confer notability on her. See WP:INVALIDBIO. I cannot find the coverage necessary to establish her notability per WP:GNG. Can you? Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The bulk of her article space is taken up listing the full names and birthdates of her numerous children (most of them minors). If people outside of the narrow demographic that follows formerly royal houses cared about her, there would be sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to husband PamD 08:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being the consort to someone whose family was deposed from power decades ago is not a default sign of notability and the sourcing is not there to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:OUTCOMES. A run of the mill heiress, she married well and became a stay-at-home mother of seven. There's a bit of coverage of her on social pages and social media, but it's not significant coverage; just rather passing mentions on wedding guest lists and in obituaries. We have in the past redirected the consorts of nobility. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan cricket team records[edit]

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

Redundant, as List of Sri Lanka One Day International cricket records, List of Sri Lanka Test cricket records and List of Sri Lanka Twenty20 International cricket records exist for the 3 cricket formats, and they are much better articles. This article has duplicated text from those 3 articles, and all those articles display the text much more neatly Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons outlined in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian cricket team records. Ajf773 (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are redundant and isn't needed when their are three other articles that do this exact same job. HawkAussie (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant Spiderone 18:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian cricket team records[edit]

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

Redundant, as List of India One Day International cricket records, List of India Test cricket records and List of India Twenty20 International cricket records exists for the 3 cricket formats, and they are much better articles. This article has duplicated text and then just links to those articles, so not needed Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, this is already comprehensively covered in three different articles relating to the three different international match formats. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant Spiderone 22:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are redundant and isn't needed when their are three other articles that do this exact same job. HawkAussie (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 21:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nimi Adokiye[edit]

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

Article about an actress that fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. She has only played minor roles in most of her movies. Lapablo (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:NACTOR & doesn’t possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 14:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this actress does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seerat Alam[edit]

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

Non-notable actress, failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The references are either mere mentions or appear to be WP:USERGENERATED content on IMDb. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable 17-year-old actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTABLE and article appears to be getting 'defended' by a single purpose account that is WP:NOTHERE to contribute ♥ Melody ♥ 03:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. But she's young, maybe she will get larger roles and more coverage in a few years. --GRuban (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering her roles were 7 and more years ago, she seems to be a child actress who never made the transition to being a teenaged actress. She seems to have last had a role at age 10. I should have looked more deeply before making a comment about her age. I mean it is possible she will break into being an actress as an adult, or do any one of many other things, but we have no way of knowing that now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you said that yes she has worked in indian television 7 years ago but the reason her article is made is that she is returning to tv as per the information I've got from the production house, she has also worked into foreign tvcs for Sri Lanka, Indonesia. She is making her comeback that why this article has been made and although she was kind famous in the year the year 2013-2014 but she left working due to work in foreign ads and in 2018 she was selected in one of Indian Television series but she rejected because of mythological language and yes she is doing her comeback soon and I've got this information from production house itself.

User: Celebritycheckkk (talk) 06:33, 01 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep may be she will make her comeback soon

— Missentertainment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:32, 3 August 2020‎ (UTC).[reply]

- We don't keep articles based on the possibility that someone will maybe become more notable in the future. Obviously if she gets several notable roles and coverage in the future an article will be allowed, but with no evidence of such plans we will not keep the article just because it might happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Missentertainment why did you remove my comment + Spiderone comment? they have been added back. --Devokewater @ 15:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's a confirmed sock puppet. Their vote should probably be striked out. Spiderone 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 23:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:53, 4 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. Go to jail. Move directly to jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect £200. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly (pinball)[edit]

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

This survived an (mass) AfD 10 years ago as 'no consensus' and hasn't improved since, but we are now much stricter in our guidelines on what is notable. My BEFORE failed to find any significant coverage of this toy, and WP:NOTACATALOGUE of pinball machines... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding anything that's not in sales sites, from the publisher, or on wikis/blogs. We have an entire wikiproject of such articles. See WP:PINBALL. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Poker Tour (pinball)[edit]

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

This survived an (mass) AfD 10 years ago as 'no consensus' and hasn't improved since, but we are now much stricter in our guidelines on what is notable. My BEFORE failed to find any significant coverage of this toy, and WP:NOTACATALOGUE of pinball machines... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No idea how that ended at "no consensus", as the only Keep votes were WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments. Nothing I could find on this points to it being notable enough to have an article (as I imagine is the case with many other pinball machine articles), and its obscurity doesn't lend itself to being a redirect. Delete for failing WP:N. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:14, 4 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean (pinball)[edit]

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

This survived an (mass) AfD 10 years ago as 'no consensus' and hasn't improved since, but we are now much stricter in our guidelines on what is notable. My BEFORE failed to find any significant coverage of this toy, and WP:NOTACATALOGUE of pinball machines... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The closest I found to coverage in reliable sources is a short description in this book on the history of pinball. But, the coverage in that book is very brief, and is not enough to pass the WP:GNG on its own. Aside from that, I am just finding database entries or "For Sale" pages. It also seems that there was another, unrelated pinball machine themed after the movies that came out in 2018 by a different company, but that machine also does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. Ordinarily I would be fine with this just being Redirected to Stern (game company), but the fact that there are two completely different pinball machines from two different companies with the exact same name means that this wouldn't be an ideal solution. Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 6 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. But not without a little bit of nostalgia for Wikipedia as it was in 2004, of which this article is a relic. Haukur (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soy Sauce Warrior Kikkoman[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV - no WP:RELIABLESOURCES available as far as I have been able to determine. Paradox society 08:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Also it's just a flash movie. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion/claim of notability. Also no corresponding Japanese article, only an unrefefenced Chinese one. Ping me if any good sources are found (which presumably would require someone who reads Japanese to search for them). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced article on an early internet meme. Searching for additional sources turned up no significant coverage in English sources, and no Japanese sources have been produced during the duration of this AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 09:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benji Dunn[edit]

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

I have doubts whether this fictional character passes GNG and WP:NFICTION. The article is pure WP:PLOT summary and the sources linked mention him only in passing. My BEFORE failed to reveal additional sources (all I see are just more mentions in passing and/or plot summaries), but PROD has been challenged, so - let's discuss. My best idea right now is to redirect this to Simon Pegg since the character may not be notable on its own, but he is important to Pegg's career as an actor and is mentioned in his bio. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete no obvious sources for this one, despite multiple appearances in a pretty notable franchise. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I wouldn't object to a redirect, and encourage people to keep looking for sources. Jontesta (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. I don't see an obvious redirect target -- Pegg's article? The film series? The individual films in which the character appeared? Ravenswing 01:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Monetti[edit]

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

A completely outsourced article, written in a promotional tone (with no inline citations). Was previously deleted after PROD expiry, that's nominating for AfD this time. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Zoodino (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The tone of the article is such that it needs to be blown up and started over, and it is not possible to assess whether the subject satisfies biographical notability. The lack of links to other articles is another problem with assessment. No footnotes. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also submitted as draft, and declined by AFC reviewers. Probable conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing. Recommend a topic-ban or partial block on author. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time that we make AfC the only way to create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact this was rejected at AfC and still made it into the mainspace is just ridiculous. Eternal Shadow Talk 01:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2019 European Parliament election in Slovenia. If there is improved coverage this can be undone and discussed again if there is still dispute Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homeland League[edit]

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

fails wp:org and wp:gng. A tiny political party with no accomplishments or notable people involved, sourced on the back of a single press release with some accompanying churnalism, puff pieces, and trivial gossip. Grung0r (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Grung0r (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Grung0r (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, googling Slovenian newspapers shows quite a few news stories related to the party. And 1.7% in a national election is far from "tiny". --Soman (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm the original creator of the article. Please note that I've addressed Grung0r's concerns regarding the article on the article's talk page (which you may wish to look over), however, since we seemed to have arrived at an impasse in that discussion (in particular Grung0r's belief that Slovenia's news agency, the Slovenian Press Agency, is not a reliable source along with some other major Slovenian media organisations and potentially also all the media that rely on the reporting of the former for their own stories), I suggested to Grung0r that (s)he seeks input from other editors. Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you wouldn't attempt to summarize the beliefs and motivations you think I have. I stated the reasons I thought the page should be deleted in the nomination, and that reasoning needs no commentary from you, unless you have a material objection. Grung0r (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabour the point, but I feel I must respond. As per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion: "The author of the article can make his/her case like everyone else. As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone [...]" I lodged my comment as I think you neglected your due diligence regarding the deletion proposal.

First of all, the notability of the article in its current state was disputed and being discussed on the talk page. Our central disagreement was whether media sources that do not give the full names of the authors are reliable sources (or media that relies on them). After I said that I don't see any point in continuing discussing such an assertion and recommended you seek input from other editors on this point, you nominated the article for deletion. In your deletion summary, I feel you neglected to mention/misrepresented the discussion on the talk page. I feel that it would have been proper of you to have sought 3rd opinions through other mechanisms regarding the reliability of used sources instead of nominating the article for deletion and just reiterating your belief as an undisputed fact without alluding to the matter of the dispute. Furthermore, you never asked me to provide alternative sources for the article, nor have you sought them yourself, apparently.

Additionally, I already responded to all your other objections that you reiterated in the deletion summary. You responded with "Can you summarize why you believe this political party to be notable(according to WP:ORG)? I don't see that sort of argument in your reply, just gainsaying of my individual points." I replied with: "I thought it wise to address your individual arguments as I thought your objection to the existence of this article is derived from those in-of-themselves. [...]" From there on, the discussion hinged merely on the reliability of the sources. You never addressed my counter-arguments. You still reiterated them in your deletion summary.

In my comment, I merely pointed out that the deletion was a result of an ongoing dispute regarding the reliability of sources which was not obvious from your deletion summary. Furthermore, I don't feel I discussed your motivations in any way.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request is not the result of an ongoing dispute. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU or our discussion. Nowhere in this wall of text did you give an argument as to why the reasons I gave for deleting the page are wrong, only why the reasons you imagined I requested to have deleted it were an affront to you. I gave my actual reasons when I nominated this page for deletion, and as you note, you are more than entitled so say why you think they are wrong, but please, leave me out of it. Grung0r (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   [...] I don't think there's any point in further discussing this so if you'd like, you can ask independent editors to deliberate on your objections. - me, 21 July

   Ok. I will nominate the article for deletion. - Grung0r, 21 July, full and final reply

   ( Article is nominated for deletion on 21 July )

   The deletion request is not the result of an ongoing dispute. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU or our discussion. - Grung0r, 25 July

You - as well as other deliberants - may find my arguments against your objections listed in our discussion on Talk:Homeland_League. I however remain firm in my belief that other editors should deliberate on whether your assertion that media sources that do not list full author names in bylines (and those media that cite the former) are unreliable sources, since this, if true, would have implications far beyond the current article in question.

I apologise to other editors for us two going on a tangent but I felt the need to respond. Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing my politeness in allowing our conversation to come to a natural conclusion before I requested deletion with the actual set of events and information that led me to the conclusion taht the page should be deleted. They didn't happen at the same time. Or maybe you're just filibustering, hoping no one will read the misformatted wall of text you've left behind, however bereft of arguments it might be. Unless you come up with an actual objection to the reasons I stated the page should be deleted, let this stand as my "full and final reply" to you on this matter. Grung0r (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that you did not do your due diligence, did not seek consensus, ignored most of my counter-arguments and never-the-less nominated the article for deletion by just reiterating the spurious reasons you initially advanced. Please, review Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating, Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations, and Template:Notability. As for your assertion that "A state owned media outlet that "does not publish full names of article authors" is not a reliable source! What is the possible justification for such a policy, other than to be able to pass off press releases about fictional events as "news"?"; I don't know how to respond to such a preposterous allegation, so I'll just reiterate my original stance that other editors should adjudicate. If they agree with you, I can seek sources with bulky bylines that your heart so desires.

I'll end this discussion here and let others deliberate. Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. BMB 722 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet !vote ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet of Jay Hodec? That seems important...Grung0r (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Grung0r: I had no part in this. I disavow any and all illegitimate votes. Anyway, why would I create obvious sockpuppet accounts? That'd be just plain stupid. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A sock puppet that randomly felt the need to vote in your favor. Why do you think it did it? It didn't vote in any other afd's as far as I can tell.Grung0r (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it managed to hit up 3 pages within 10 min before being blocked, as you can see here: Special:Contributions/BMB_722. 2 of these may have been just collateral damage, or maybe disruption was the goal.

By the way, you seem to be quite hostile towards me. I think I've been civil in my interactions with you and don't think I've done anything to warrant the animus/bad blood. I'd appreciate if you'd extend me the same courtesy.

Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. This article only proves the party existed and, with such a tiny number of votes in one election, proves they have not achieved notable or important results. The Slovenian language article (https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domovinska_liga) does not help much as it suggests that the party has not enough notable or important achievements beyond what the English language article displays. Usefulness is not a valid reason to retain. The above back-and-forth discussion is of no help or use to anyone. doktorb _words^deeds 07:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to 2019_European_Parliament_election_in_Slovenia. Doktorb said it all: 1.7% domestically in ANY election is a fringe result at best. Ravenswing 01:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are already listed under that page, but as the "Patriotic League". Difference in translation, I suppose. Grung0r (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protein poisoning[edit]

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

Article provides no evidence this is a "real" medical condition separate from Protein Toxicity Lunarfantom (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the talk page a few rather major issues have been raised. Namely: 1. Lack of medical citations or information. This article is being treated as a medical illness yet there is no research cited, nor input from medical authorities, no a proposed cure/treatment, proposed mechanisms, or anything else that one would expect to find in a medical article. The only information provided is anecdotal.

2. It's arguably propaganda. The wording strongly implies that rabbit meat is somehow inferior and risky to consume because of its comparably high protein content, even though several animals (such as elk and deer) have far more protein/fat and are not mentioned at all, nor is there any implication that the "cause" would be through a mainly carnivorous diet, rather then a supposed "over consumption of rabbit." Hence "rabbit starvation."

3. The article is arguably copyright infringement, as someone in the talk pages argues that their work is basically being quoted here without credits of any kind.

4. This supposed condition is basically just protein toxicity. The only research of any kind I could find actually analyzing the condition was found here. And the symptoms, mechanism, etc are literally the same. To quote:

"Despite thepaucity of clinical data, it is quite likely that the symptoms of rab-bit starvation result primarily from the finite ability of the liver toup-regulate enzymes necessary for urea synthesis in the face ofincreasing dietary protein intake. Rudman et al (43) showed thatthe mean maximal rate of urea synthesis (MRUS) in normal sub-jects is 65 mg N · h21· kg body wt20.75(range: 55–76 mg N · h21·kgbody wt20.75) and that protein intakes that exceeded the MRUSresulted in hyperammonemia and hyperaminoacidemia. UsingRudman et al’s (43) data (assuming 16% N/g protein), we calcu-lated the mean maximal protein intake for an 80-kg subject to be250 g/d (range: 212–292 g/d). For a 12 552-kJ energy intake, themean maximal dietary protein intake would be 35.1% of energy(range: 29.7–40.9% of energy). Therefore, dietary protein intakesgreater than values in this range may result in hyperammonemiaand hyperaminoacidemia, which in turn likely cause some of theclinical symptoms responsible for the rabbit starvation syndromedescribed by explorers"^[1]

If this is the case, then the article should be Merged with Protein Toxicity and maybe we could make a footnote citing that over consumption of protein is another possible mechanism aside from liver failure, and note the references to hunter-gatherers who found themselves in northern areas without enough vegetation to balance their animal intake.

(This is my first time flagging a page for deletion so if I messed up in the procedure I apologize in advance).

Lunarfantom (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cordain, Loren (March 2000). "Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energyestimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 71 (3): 688. doi:10.1093/ajcn/71.3.682.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My first thought was that it sounds and reads like WP:SYNTH because none of the references in the article even mention the word poisoning. I did some research and find the topic notable.
I did find some refs elsewhere

BBC
Haaretz
New Daily,
Health Online
Abstract from the Journal of Archaeological Science,
Journal of Animal Science,
Journal Article The Protein Poison,

Books

Because of the many sources available I do not think we are dealing with WP:FRINGE/PS. In the case of this article WP:NOTCLEANUP. Per WP:NEXIST, there is ample material to write an article - because this one is WP:IMPERFECT. Lightburst (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your article listed as #7 Journal Article the Protein Poisoning actually has nothing to do with this page. It's titled "protein poisoning" for sure, but protein poisoning in the context of the page I'm proposing we delete, refers to an illness caused by over-consumption of protein rich meat.

The link you propose is "related" and therefor evidence of notability, is not about this. It's about a certain protein that was derived by chemically treating bacteria, and then injected into the veins of mammals. It is literally less related then the article on protein toxicity. (If the wikipedia "protein poisoning" page were an apple, and "protein toxicity" an orange, the book you linked would be similar to a cabbage. It looks related at a glance, but they aren't even the same field of study).

Most the other articles you reference are .com sites, which tend to be unreliable sources for medical information in general. Lunarfantom (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many sources available - some of them are in depth. Especially in my link to books and journals. The topic is notable. Whether or not is should be WP:ATD-M will be determined, however some form of the topic should be kept and developed. Using different search terms, like rabbit starvation, etc, produces an abundance of sources. If I listed some unrelated refs above it is because I was not studying them. But just look at how many books cover rabbit starvation (I count 40). Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my apologies, earlier you said you'd concluded it wasn't fringe based on the sources so I misunderstood the intent. Diving a bit further, #3 the Journal of Animal Science actually concludes that protein poisoning doesn't exist, based on their experiment with feeding high-protein diets to pigs, while the "How Cooking Made us Human" article is a very old article, over 100 years, and rather questionable. (They were injecting suffers of syphilis with mercury in this very article, to give a sense of scientific timescale).

You raise an interesting point about the multiplicity of terms. The phrase "rabbit starvation" is part of why I flagged this, as it's rather misleading terminology with seemingly no reliable scientific backing. It's easy to find ancient literature and websites describing "rabbit starvation" but attempts to search for peer reviewed articles or any other scientific research focused upon it yield little to no results. (If you only search for the term amongst journals it's referenced casually and in passing, but finding it as the focus of a study is challenging at best). If we consider Protein Poisoning to be separate from Toxicity, I'd argue it's Questionable Science at best and Pseudoscience at worst.

The guidelines say "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." so I definitely think this merits a critical review. Lunarfantom (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's plenty of literature and primary sources specifically referring to 'rabbit starvation'. while there is some overlap with protein toxicity, this does not justify deletion, as there is a different scope for each article. protein toxicity is about a condition caused by lack of kidney function, while rabbit starvation is from a diet lacking in fat. there may be similarities, but the causes are quite different. in addition, the 'rabbit starvation' article can focus on literary/historical references and practical considerations, while 'protein toxicity' can cover the medical angle. as for the rest: it's not propaganda because the sources tend to focus on rabbit meat as a cause, and it does state clearly that it's caused by a lack of fat consumption; and copyvio can be sorted out without resorting to deletion. While we're at it, the title should be 'rabbit starvation' rather than 'protein poisoning', since the former is most commonly used term, see WP:COMMONNAME. Xcalibur (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep renamed as "Rabbit starvation". First let's untangle. We're talking about starvation effects in humans of eating a diet with plenty of protein but a lack of fat. We're not talking about kidney problems caused by protein toxicity. There's no "poisoning" so this title is misleading. A warning against rabbit starvation appears in an Air Force arctic survival guide (pgs 116,119) from 1941-47, likely derived from Stefansson's account of his direct experience. (Looks like the Air Force source is mentioned but not cited in the article.) Wide newspaper mentions in the 1940s, in the 40 books found by Lightburst, it might have been mentioned in Winter's Bone, I've had offline conversations about it with a nurse friend, and as described above there are tons of sources; the phrase and idea are certainly in the culture and deserve encyclopedic treatment, if only as a skeptical review of quotes from Stefansson and Darwin. I don't know if there's medical proof or case studies, but all this is perfectly consistent with many many descriptions of fat deficiency in medical literature, so I don't see any pseudoscientific nonsense. Is it anti-rabbit propaganda? Sure maybe but there's no rule against that. --Lockley (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just as a heads-up for others. Since the nomination I've edited the article. I've requested removal of the claimed copyright material from edits back in 2006, none of which appears in the current version. I've also clarified protein poisoning versus protein toxicity, etc. It's a work in progress, there's more to do (like squeeze this source), but these changes are meant to respond to the valid problems identified here and on the article's talk page. FYI. --Lockley (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No rule against propaganda?! What?! Yes, there is! "Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view." 74.78.17.187 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or start again, this looks largely Fringe to me. At the moment two rather broad claims are being made, one) its caused by low fat consumption two) its caused by high protein consumption. Neither has a reliable medical source. It could equally be caused by a low consumption of micronutrients... insufficient consumption of a macronutrient, increased consumption of a macronutrient, and based on the fact this has occurred in so few people, easily an error of metabolism such as a genetic disorder such as a urea cycle disorder. I.e. Rabbits may be harmless in the healthy. Either way, protein poisoning is a POV not a medical fact, and even redirect doesn't seem to have enough evidence PainProf (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not fringe as there are plenty sources specifically referring to 'rabbit starvation'. Notable IMHO - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Fringe because not described in medical literature rather than pop culture. As such the sources are not reliable for causation. Which seems to be the point of this particular article.I don't think a real medical source will ever exist because responsible clinicians do not opine about disease when they have no chance to examine the pt or some kind of evidence. PainProf (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass GNG even if through its popular understanding rather than medical coverage. ——Serial 11:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, really a real thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Tagoe[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 09:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTY.Dougal18 (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 22:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since he has not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlestown Rowing Club[edit]

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

Basically a private club page, I can't see how a list of boats meets WP:Notability (sports) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pallavi Sharma[edit]

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

Non-notable actress who worked in one TV serial. Subject must have significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG. DMySon 04:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon 04:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to qualify WP:NACTOR. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable television actress who does not meet our very broad inclusion criteria for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namiq Qaraçuxurlu[edit]

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

This page is an obvious example of conflict of interest. First of all, the singer's real name is Namiq Hilal oglu Shukurov. It is totally possible that the user responsible for creating this page, named Ilkin Shukurov, might be a close relative of the subject himself. The initial version of the article contained this sentence: "Namiq Qaraçuxurlu's assistant is Rafael Abdullayev, and PR Manager is Ilkin Shukurov." 1 The article is right now nominated for deletion on the Turkish and Russian Wikipedia as well. As far as I can see, no independent coverage of his work is available on the web, and the user responsible for creating the page left an interesting comment on the discussion that is taking place on the Turkish Wikipedia, saying that "the singer himself cannot find any sources" (quote: kaynak vere bilecegim birsey yok cunki sanatci kendisi bile kaynak bulamiyor), which again indicates that he might have a close relationship with the subject. Based on these reasons, I think the article needs to be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 04:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We should not allow the creation of articles by close family members. This is one of the factors that adds to Wikipedia's extreme presentism. Although we are not as badly presentist as we were 12 years ago, in large part because we have created a little monitoring and control to stop a little of the presentist abuse of articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, PR. --Devokewater @ 23:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable person failing WP:GNG and any specific ones like WP:NCREATIVE with no reliable independent in-depth sources. Only "news" churnalism articles are basically photos. One interview (primary source). Not even close to being in-depth coverage. The article is basically a promotion social profile with obvious neutrality issues. Author blanked the AfD and issues banners, so I have no hope for constructive editing here. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NACTOR and WP:NMUSIC. The COI is of interest, but not of itself a reason to delete Fiddle Faddle 06:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:18, 4 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 speedy withdrawn. convinced by the many reputable sources found during the deletion debate (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin[edit]

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

WIth only two short mentions in reputable media (LATimes and NYTimes), coverage per WP:FILM has not been established. The synopsis is all original research, and the only sourced material is meta stuff like how the the film was developed. Since there is not enough source material to have a meaningful article, this article must be deleted. Ysangkok (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, actually - NYT review is a proper review, there's Hollywood Reporter, an interview with the director ... it's marginal, but there's sufficient coverage for a short article - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found reviews from Variety, Under the Radar, and Common Sense Media. CSM isn't the super strongest but it's generally seen as a RS for reviews. It's enough to pass NFILM. In all fairness, the reviews did take quite a bit of digging through false positives and junk results on Google to find due to the title being a fairly common article title for general Bitcoin discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- nice one! - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rangoli Chandel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page was earlier deleted on April 29, 2020, via the AfD route. It again reappeared with trivial details. The entity belongs to a notable Indian actor but she doesn't qualify to have her Wiki page. (WP:BIORELATED, as an invalid criteria). Also, she fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Kindly note, the article is created by User:Mr.MOSAK which seems to qualify as WP:SPA. Hence, calling for an AfD. Hatchens (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete much of the media attention is tabloid-like and WP:MILL. Java Hurricane 03:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are just so many problems here. Haukur (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per BLP1E (in the first instance), and that the coverage of the Twitter incident doesn't actually provide credible details upon which to base an article. Ravenswing 01:35, 9 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creditseva[edit]

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

A company with no significant, independent and in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails NCORP and GNG. M4DU7 (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches find start-up product and financing coverage, plus a Hot 100: Race to Grace 2017 award, which is not inherently notable. There is also a later item discussing data breach rumours [38], but that is effectively a case study. The company's acquisition by AsiaCollect in October 2018 is not mentioned in the present article. I am not seeing the coverage about the company needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Vibeke Stene. Consensus that the band is not notable yet, though it might be in the future. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veil of Secrets[edit]

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

Although I added a couple of refs to it, but I doubt they are sufficient enough to pass WP:BAND. Dtt1^Talk 02:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 02:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vibeke Stene, where this new band is already discussed. Stene is very popular in the Scandinavian metal scene and the announcement of her new band has gotten some buzz in the genre press. However, the new band was only announced a few weeks ago and all reporting has been variations on their basic press release. With no material yet released and no further significant and reliable coverage, it is too soon for an article on the band. The redirect to Stene's article will allow an article on the band to be recreated easily if they get more coverage after their first album is released. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Dilhara[edit]

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

Questionable sourcing, does not meet notability threshold. seems like a mostly self promotional article — IvanCrives (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have remodelled the page by deleting all catchphrases as well as paraphrases. So I guess, the article is now fully encyclopedic and no need of deletion. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Which "notability threshold" does IvanCrives suggest she does not meet? Have you done a WP:BEFORE? She appears to easily meet WP:NACTOR, which requires the subject "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" and "Has a large fan base". Salsapuna "is a long running Sri Lankan television drama series broadcast on television network Sirasa TV ... The character Podi Patharakari ... portrayed by the actress Michelle Dilhara became popular among the Sri Lankan audience." Sudu Andagena Kalu Awidin "is a Sri Lankan television series starring Chandani Seneviratne, Michelle Dilhara ... The teledrama portrays the story of Ayoma (Michelle)". Thuththiri "is a long running Sri Lankan science fiction television series broadcast on Sirasa TV ... starring Michelle Dilhara". Also, WP:ANYBIO requires "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". She has received a National Youth Icon Award, "conferred to 70 young individuals globally, setting high standards for their inspiring work and services contributed towards achieving the (SDGs) of the United Nations." -Lopifalko (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles for the shows she's supposedly so well known for being in are extremely badly sourced and barely notable themselves. Looking through the articles on them I'd hard pressed to deduce that they are that popular or at least enough to warrant this actress having an article because of being in them. Since their claims to fame are mostly weasel words. For instance she "Has a large fan base." Cool, but that could mean anything and plenty of non-notable actors/actresses have fan bases. She's in Salsapuna which is a "long running" program, but so what if it's long running? Supposedly she's "popular among the Sri Lankan audience", but again that's meaningless to notability. Everything else is much of the same. So, I'm going with delete due to failing WP:NACTOR. Unless someone posts some serious, in-depth, reliable sources about her. BTW, I know she has the award, but it's questionable the award is "well-known and significant." Plus, it doesn't have anything to do with her acting careering and I'm pretty sure that's what WP:NACTOR is talking about when it references awards. BTW 2.0, I could also do a break down of the sources currently in the article and why I don't think they pass WP:NACTOR and are mostly ref bombing, but I'm not going to waste my time. I think her lack of notable roles is way more important anyway. Since the article is about her as an actress. Not her other work. Even though most of the article seems to be about it, but I'm not the one that referenced WP:NACTOR originally to try and claim she was notable. So, whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Adamant1: I referred to WP:ANYBIO in regard to the award. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't think that deleting a page is not worthy by citing some minor relavant things. As a whole, we need to improve the quality of the page rather than deleting them. It is the most appropriate thing to do. I am not agree with his reasons, where she is not popular or her awards are not worthy. You should know that any popular singer, actor or any other personality is not made by one day. So in the future, she may be someone like to awarded with a Nobel Peace Award. So, it is our responsibility as Wikipedi editors to notify and improve the articles. Deleting a page is not acceptable. If you go through Wikipedia, you will see that there are many poor sourced celebrity articles. Just check Sunil Shetty, much popular Bollywood actor. Meanwhile, Dilhara's page has lot of information that are reliable. So do not make it as a poor sourced article. International award means an international award. Do not lower it values. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Gihan Jayaweera: If she wins the Nobel peace prize, we can write an article about her then. Deletion is not permanent. See WP:TOOSOON. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 13:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not my point. I am telling you all about her significance to the field of art as well as environement in my country. So, according to that, I can assure that, she has a significant popularity as well as importance. So it is worth to keep the article. Further changes in the future can be done later. I don't know why you all have the same deletion mindset ONLY for this article. There are lot of articles with poor sources. If you check here, most of the sources are from prominent newspapers and websites of Sri Lanka. So how you assure that they are poor sources by standing away from my country. I also can tell that some of your news channels such as Channel 4 is a ridiculous site in my sense. Is it worth then? I know better about my country and my media and its personalities. That is why I tried to bring them to the international arena. But, by referring to small inaccuracies, you all are trying to delete only this article. I cannot accept that. My point is, she is worth and important not only my country, but also worldwide. Thank you Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG and NACTOR. The article has lots of sources from Sri Lankan newspapers, including Sarasaviya, the Sri Lankan Daily News, Silumina, The Sunday Times and Ceylon Today. I don't know which of those are reliable sources or not, but the nomination only says "questionable sourcing", with no analysis or discussion about which sources are questionable. For example, "Actress Michelle Dilhara on becoming Earth Day Network Ambassador to Sri Lanka" in The Sunday Morning seems to be significant coverage; if it's not, then I'd like to know the concerns about The Sunday Morning as a source. She also has significant roles in notable TV shows, including Salsapuna and Sudu Andagena Kalu Awidin. Adamant1's insistence that these shows are "barely notable" is odd; they have Wikipedia articles with lots of references, and I don't know why you would discount them, except as an expression of WP:ZEAL. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see some evidence of WP:ZEAL on my part. I vote for articles to be merged or redirected as much as I vote delete, and I also suggest both in my nominations when it's an option. Plus, I've voted keep on articles when the sources actually warranted it. Whereas, you hardly or never vote merge, redirect, or delete. Either way, I would refer you to WP:NPA since you've seemed to have ignored the first time I asked you to follow it and stop making things personal. As far as the sourcing goes, which I think is a more valid arrangement then some grade school crap like "your just like deleting everything!!!", Salsapuna has had a verification banner on it since 2017 and the article is mostly plot summary. Neither of which bode well to it being a popular enough show where every single person has acted in it deserves their own article. She wasn't even introduced in it until the 250th episode either. Which was almost halfway through it's run. So, I'd hardly call her the main star or her part extremely important to the show. Even if it is a popular show.

The same would go for her role in Sudu Andagena Kalu Awidin. Where her character is like 5th on the list and the person who plays the main character when they were younger doesn't even have their own Wikipedia article. I think that's a good enough argument that her acting appearances aren't notable enough on their own for her to have an article because of them. BTW, I knew all that already when I voted. Just because I don't give a long winded explanation every damn time I vote doesn't mean the vote wasn't based on a thorough analysis of things. I have better things to do though then explain every little minor detail of my thought process in every vote just so people like you, who seem to have no better arguments or things to do with your time, won't attack me. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets general and actor criteria. Might also meet the criteria for activists/philanthropists, founding the The invisible to visible movement and winning several awards for both.Fred (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep do not judge an article by thinking about only two television serials. You are always stated that Sudu Andagena Kalu Awidin and Salsapuna. But, she has acted in many other television serials as well as some upcoming movies. You cant guess the acting credibility by stating that her role came after 250th episode or etc. She has appeared in that time because her character needs in that moment. So don't judge the acting through such ridiculous comments. So my vote is always to that NEVER DELETE, BUT IMPROVE... (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gihan Jayaweera:, do you think every source from Sri Lanka is reliable "because Sri Lanka and I NEVER DELETE ANYTHING EVER!!!" or is there some Sri Lanka sources that aren't reliable? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 21:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Eerie[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, sources are IMDb and iTunes, only 1 review on Rotten Tomatoes. Most results are either misspellings of Lake Erie (for which this is a plausible redirect) or for other, equally non-notable things with the same name. No possible redirect targets as a film. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is more of a weak keep, mind, but I did find two reviews and some coverage. Horrornews.net isn't as major as Dread Central or DVD Talk, but it's still seen as a reliable source. I certainly had to dig for these! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources reviews identified above and added to the article so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TreeDBNotes[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSOFTWARE. Only reviews I can find are from software download sites, which are not independent sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 12:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2012-03 ↻ restored, 2009-12 ✗ PROD

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the two references in the article are their (currently-hacked) website, and a crowd-sourced review. I can't find any reliable references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nor can I. Fails NSOFT. Ravenswing 01:32, 9 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. Following Tacyarg's investigation we have a consensus for deletion. Haukur (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Mortimer[edit]

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

The article is purely a genealogical entry, which is not what Wikipedia is for; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It is not at all apparent what makes the subject notable, and the lack of coverage in sources does not help. Even the obituary in NYT, the major source for the article, is a paid notice. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and trout the nominator for an utter failure to meet the basic standards of WP:COMPETENCE. The "obituary in NYT" is not a paid notice, but is a lengthy, staff-written piece by the notable journalist Margalit Fox. (cited as reference 5; a paid death notice is also cited, but its existence is irrelevant to notability.) From that NYT piece: Miss Harriman’s Moscow exploits were widely covered by the American press. “With the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt and Deanna Durbin,” The New York Herald Tribune wrote in 1945, “Kathleen Harriman is the best-known American woman in the Soviet Union.” There's really no question of notability here, and no question that the nominator didn't even bother to review the sources cited in the article. Tacyarg appears to be quite right, and I've likely conflated two women with very similar names discussed in the same bio. I apologize to the nom and to every editor who followed me down that road. That said, I would still !vote to keep. There's extensive sourcing, and socialites of the era played a role in popular culture similar to that played by reality tv personalities and YouTube exhibitionists today. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The text is currently heavy on genealogy and light on career information, but the sourcing is enough to establish notability. The full NYT story by Margalit Fox has details not yet included (e.g., she attended the Yalta Conference). XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Nearly everyone who gets a 1000 word obit in the Times is notable. pburka (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this woman got a paid notice. According to Forbes's Who Gets A Paid Obituary In The New York Times -- And Why?, "anyone can submit one about anyone who has died" if they "have a lot of money". Having a lot of money is not a notability criterion, is it? Surtsicna (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I wrote this, there was a 1000 word unpaid obit linked from the article. It now appears that was about a different person with a similar name. pburka (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I may be confused, but I think there were two related women with similar names, and they have got confused in the article: Katharine Mortimer (died 2003) and her sister-in-law Kathleen Harriman (died 2011), who was Kathleen Mortimer after marriage. The article is about the former's life, except for the statement about her journalism. The NYT obit by Margalit Fox, and this Telegraph obit, are about the latter. If that's the case, I'm not sure that Katharine Mortimer's article should be kept. Kathleen Harriman looks like she might be notable, though I'm not clear from the two obits what her journalism or her political hostessing (?) amounted to. Tacyarg (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I also noticed that one of the references was to a self-published conspiracy-theory book about the Rockefellers, the Kennedys and Watergate. XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an obituary you pay to have included does not add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there are a lot of sources included, quite a few are not about the subject of the article, and those that are are WP:ROUTINE, such as her marriage and divorce announcements. Three of the sources relate to the other wives and children of one of the subject's husbands, which is getting a bit far off the point. I take the point Hullaballoo Wolfowitz makes about socialites, but unless there is extensive coverage of Katharine Mortimer in the Patterson book (currently ref 11), then I don't see WP:SIGCOV of her. Tacyarg (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the new info uncovered by Tacyarg suggesting some sources are not even about her. JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Football (EP)[edit]

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

Poor refs. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Updated article to include sources. 86.41.88.42 (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to American Football (band) if admins think the article title is a viable search term). Unfortunately the new sources do not help. ~~The first footnote is a fake reference to a non-existent AllMusic review,~~ and the second is to a basic retail listing. The current third and fourth references are to general introductions to the band's history in which this EP is mentioned briefly but with no critical analysis. The EP received no significant and reliable notice on its own terms. The band got noticed later but this EP remains too obscure for Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first footnote was not a "fake" reference to a "non-existant" review. It was the result of both an editing typo (hence why the rating stars were not showing) and me working off an old template. It seems that AllMusic has changed it's linking system in the last couple of years, rendering the old template useless. The Allmusic review is very much extant and I have since fixed that link. I have absolutely no interest in providing fake reviews. I thought I'd just clear that up.

Also, I don't know if the existance of an Allmusic review affects your judgement, but I would argue this EP is no more obscure than a lot of other early unsuccessful releases by notable artists that haven't had their articles on Wikipedia removed eg. the first 3 releases of My Bloody Valentine (created 15 years ago) which not unlike this EP have little but an AllMusic review and a few passing references to support their significance.86.41.88.42 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the accusation of a fake AllMusic review; you are correct about the change to their linking system. However, the review is still just one paragraph with little critical analysis, so my vote remains the same. Regarding your point about similar albums, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Football (band): Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above. I don't think a redirect would be useful, given that the band seems to name every single release "American Football." (WTH?) Ravenswing 01:31, 9 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. Consensus is for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lions Gold Awards[edit]

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

Unnotable award show and doesn't meet WP:ORG Princepratap1234 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is a notable annual award for India's television & film industry per the cited sources. It is commercially sponsored but so are the Oscars and Emmys in the US if you consider the television commercials during broadcast. Granted, they haven't been around as long but that doesn't make them any less notable. See the Bollywood Life article (Bollywood is owned by Zee Entertainment), India.com, and it's big enough to attract Getty Images. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding much better sources that are either cited in the article now or that can be:

Times of India
Times Now News, owned by The Times Group and rank #88 in the list of India's most trusted brands.
India Today
ABP News

The award and the event are highly notable. Some of the actors and actresses who attended the 2020 Lions Gold Awards: Shraddha Arya, Kunal Khemu, Elli Avram, Ankita Lokhande, Saiee Manjrekar, Ashnoor Kaur, Shaheer Sheikh, and Ananya Panday. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, the big obstacle for me is that I'm not sure that there is any content written about the award itself. Isn't that usually what is required in order for an article subject to be considered notable? I'm not sure that just because an award event gets exposure in entertainment trades that it becomes notable by default. There are sources that cover the various phony Dadasaheb awards. In contrast, I think we know a lot more about the US's Academy Awards and Emmy Awards. We know when they were started, we probably know who started each, and we know that the votes come from the body of professionals who work in the entertainment industry. Do we know any of that about this award? It probably also doesn't help that there is no clear website (that I can find) for this award entity. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a run of the mill award that has virtually no meaningful independent coverage whatsoever. As identified here Bollywoodlife and others are not reliable sources. Attracting the attention of a photo agency isn't notable - they cover everything from minor local events to prestigious national events. Praxidicae (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your wikilinked reference points to this archive for that one source, and there was no formal close or consensus that supports the claim that it is an unreliable source when used in this context. I added several more higher quality sources so it's really not an issue anyway. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of your sources provided are weak or unreliable. As is the case with most Indian media, any time there is a concern where self promotion might be involved, they can't be trusted. And yes, Bollywoodlife is not a reliable source. Go read the TF discussions beyond the single linked one. But then again, I don't expect someone who insists a source with this disclaimer This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever is actually reliable to be able to discern this. Praxidicae (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article was sourced to IANS, News18 India which is a news wire, not unlike the news wires in the US, and the text you posted is a standard disclaimer for 3rd party sources. The list of RS for India is here and it also points here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not an independent reliable source (it's a PR piece.) You should know this by now. And in your infamous words "this conversation is over." I'm not interested in the back and forth with you. You've yet to present at truly independent reliable source here and I do not trust or value your judgement of these sources given your past conduct and inability to discern what is reliable and what is not in other discussions, so nothing is going to sway me in that respect. Cheers. Praxidicae (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? What are you talking about? Why are you mentioning that source? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Praxidicae is correct here: the sources you list above will print any old crap. And IANS is nothing like Reuters. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Any links to the RfCs with consensus that supports your position? I realize India has a huge population and quite a few websites that partake in sensationalism, superlatives and a bit of celebrity gossip but we have that in the US, too, so it's not surprising that they have their share of questionable websites. They do have/have had live streaming video at the awards ceremonies so we're able to corroborate what's being published, and it kinda removes some of the guesswork, don'cha think? I'm hesitant to agree that everything spawned by India's entertainment industry broadly construed is unreliable. How about some proof? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that press releases do not establish notability, correct? And you do realize that the specific source regarding IANS is exactly that? And it 's far more than a "few" websites - it's a large portion of them, including the likes of Times of India, particularly when it comes to the entertainment industry. You claim sources exist to establish notability but thus far have only linked to their Wikipedia articles, so where are these actual sources about the subject? Praxidicae (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sick of these Indian jamborees masquerading as awards. No significant coverage in reliable references can be found for this shindig. Whatever notability it has acquired has come about from having an article on Wikipedia. MaysinFourty (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no evidence that I could find that this is a notable award function in accordance with GNG. Java Hurricane 03:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all I have been able to find is press releases from the organisation itself etc. I note that the award is given by one chapter of the Lions among the many in India - it probably is not even representative of the national organisation, although proving that is difficult because there are zero sources that discuss the awards as a "thing" rather than a bauble. - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I found no evidence of notability in a WP:BEFORE search I did. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this award has not been the subject of enough coverage to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 10:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMH Books[edit]

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

This article about a small publisher has been tagged for notability since 2018. WP:BEFORE gave me an article in The Bookseller, which I have added, but I do not think the company meets WP:NCORP. Tacyarg (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tried to see if notability could be better established and added some sources, as well as further info. The subject's web site additionally mentions "an Enterprise which David Holloway, a former [. . .] Literary Editor of the Daily Telegraph, called my ‘garden-shed industry’.", so there is a potential source there that might be discoverable. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likewise, I can't find any significant coverage for this cottage press. Ravenswing 01:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. $Salvio$ 10:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Hespe[edit]

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

State level bureaucrat; does not seem to have notability. Half of the article (the 2nd paragraph) is dedicated to a "controversial" decision he made but doesn't seem that controversial and seems more focused on the person he appointed rather than the subject of the article. (Note, the editor who added that paragraph has a long history of attacking Cerf). only (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable --Devokewater (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per presumed nobility per Category:State cabinet secretaries of the United States by state.Djflem (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:POLOUTCOMES, unfortunately. ——Serial 11:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not actually a cabinet level position so it does not create notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Would you care to correct your incorrect claim?

Jennings, Katie (September 2, 2016). "Saying 'the time is right,' Hespe resigns as state education commissioner". Retrieved July 29, 2020. This was the second time Hespe, a generally well-liked and uncontroversial member of the Christie cabinet, had served as commissioner. He was also commissioner from 1999 to 2001.

"Cabinet". State of New Jersey. Retrieved July 29, 2020. Djflem (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a third time as the discussion over whether the position meets WP:NPOL came very late in the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES, which states "Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, Japanese prefecture, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level."?

Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have dozens of articles about state-level superintendents of instruction, chancellors, and education commissioners. I don't agree that all state cabinet members are notable, but the education chief surely would be. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per WP:POLOUTCOMES Wm335td (talk) 22:20, 8 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 redirect to John C. Dvorak. All in favour of a redirect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dvorak Awards[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Obscure industry awards that lasted only a few years, no SIGCOV - just passing mention Rogermx (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John C. Dvorak. There are reliable sources mentioning some formal or informal award by Dvorak, but cetainly not broad enough coverage for a stand-alone article. Pavlor (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John C. Dvorak --Devokewater @ 09:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I agree with Redirect to John C. Dvorak. Thank you for the idea, Pavlor. Rogermx (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John C. Dvorak: Per reasons above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to that long-forgotten name from the PC magazine rack John C. Dvorak per all above. --Lockley (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as already proposed. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020-21 Queen of the South F.C. season[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article review process. This is the oldest unreviewed article of 10,000, others probably took a pass on it so I took it. :-) . Zero sources on the topic except their website, no content on the topic. Of course the team is wp:notable. Looks like topic is either a future event or may never exist. Even the SNG says seasons need coverage. North8000 (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, theres nothing useful in the article. however the season has not yet began --Devokewater @ 09:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FPL. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NSEASONS, is an article about the season of a professional team playing in a fully-professional league. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the comments above. Govvy (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the season will start in a couple of months, there's no reason to delete. In the unlikely event that the entire season gets cancelled, review at that point -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure the concern here - last year's article (2019–20 Queen of the South F.C. season) was created in May 2019, over a couple of months before the season started. The previous year's article (2018–19 Queen of the South F.C. season) was created in April 2018. We are about two months away from the season now ... if anything this article is slightly later than usual. Nfitz (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Golden Eagle Refinery. T. Canens (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avon, Contra Costa County, California[edit]

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

This is another rail station mistaken as a community. Durham identifies it as a locality on the Southern Pacific RR. Gudde says the station was built in 1877-78. In 1911 a refinery was built nearby. A post office "to serve the refinery employees" was established in 1912, first called Marsh and then renamed Associated for the Tidewater Associated Oil Company that owned the refinery. It was not and never has been a community. Current maps show it is still an industrial area. Not notable as a railroad station. Glendoremus (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Golden Eagle Refinery. Doesn't appear to have been a community per se, but the information about the post office and renaming is worth having in the refinery article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Golden Eagle Refinery. Ravenswing 01:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Golden Eagle Refinery. I updated the refinery article with text about the post office. I'd prefer to see a redirect here so as to help prevent an Avon article from being recreated as opposed to just deleting the Avon article. Cxbrx (talk) 12:58, 9 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.

[1] Cordain, Loren (March 2000). "Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energyestimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 71 (3): 688. doi:10.1093/ajcn/71.3.682.

[1]