Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 August	29 August >

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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Clyde F.C. season

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Also, there is only one line of prose and the article is incomplete Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 10:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 11:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Per nom. Fails WP:NSEASONS. Alex-h (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the nominator here. HawkAussie (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominator's reasoning is correct. Dunarc (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chika Chukwu

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

Subject of the article fails to satisfy either WP:NACTOR nor any criterion from WP:SINGER. She also appears to be a business woman but fails WP:ANYBIO also. In all she lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 23:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 23:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 23:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 23:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 23:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 23:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet WP:BASIC, WP:NACTOR or WP:SINGER. // Timothy :: talk 03:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not have significant news coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mz7 (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatCulture

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

Promotional article, requesting DRAFTIFY or deletion 1292simon (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how the article is promotional nor why it would need to be draftifyed. It covers the websites history, both its ups and downs and easily passes GNG based on the coverage in the article.★Trekker (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quite a while ago there was a really concerted and annoying spamming effort to promote the ill-fated wrestling franchise on Wikipedia over a walled garden consisting of multiple spurious and over-elaborate articles that all got deleted. That is how this ended up on my watchlist. Even though that makes me instinctively suspicious whenever I hear mention of WhatCulture, I don't detect any of that nonsense here though. I see no indication that this article is intentionally promotional. What I do see is a subject that is borderline for notability. Many of the references are poor (primary sources, YouTube videos, etc) although a few are OK. The article almost exclusively focuses on the defunct wrestling franchise and controversy over the behaviour of a former employee. There is almost nothing about the site's current general operations. Is it over the line for notability? I'm not sure. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
possibly G5 eligible I nominated for CSD G5, but withdrew it, because I wasn't certain if the SPI had to show confirmed. However, whatever evidence it was, it was enough for the creator to be blocked. Please see User:KMWeiland. The puppeteer they are suspected of being has quite a handful of confirmed and suspected socks. Graywalls (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the article has been substantially edited by other people since so we should probably judge it on its current state. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DanielRigal points out the troubled history here. This website is terrible and annoying and all of that awfulness has spilled out into our encyclopedia. But I don't think notability is a problem here. The article is in bad shape but we can't delete it because of that.LM2000 (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like What Culture very much, but the article is well sourced with third party sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also don't see how it is promotional. Can't find any promotional statements! There is enough news coverage to warrant a Keep. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Callahan (American football)

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and has not received coverage outside of transaction or game recaps. Clearly either an WP:AUTOBIO or was created by family/friends GPL93 (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There appears to be a lot of coverage. Here's an example: "Temple's Star Receiver: Jim Callahan the Living End", 11/1/67.

As someone who grew up reading the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News sports pages, I'd say that this is pretty routine coverage for a better player on a Temple football team. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, a three-column feature story in a major metropolitan newspaper is not WP:ROUTINE coverage. Second, Callahan was not just a "better player" on a Temple team: he shattered Temple's all-time records for scoring (game, season, and career) and receiving yards (season and career). Cbl62 (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another piece defining the three years from 1967 to 1969 as the "Waller-Callahan Era" at Temple. Also inducted into both the Temple and Mid-Atlantic Conference Halls of Fame. See here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep feature articles are WP:NOTROUTINE and show passing WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per above, feature articles are WP:NOTROUTINE and show passing WP:GNG -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with sources in article. The article has been cleaned up since the AfD. Notable player who set several Temple records. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sourcing and improvements to the article that have been made since this AfD was opened. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Beach Earthquake 2020

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

Non-notable, insignificant geological event; does not pass any guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability_(earthquakes). Only sources are "mere routine news reporting of the event" that had no lasting impact. —Notorious4life (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —(Notorious4life (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Draftify {Creator} I 100% moved this too quick from a draft to an article. I feel like with work, this can become enough for an article. I agree it is small, but it is rare for earthquakes in the Detroit area and even though it was small, thousands reported feeling it. So my vote is Draftify as I moved it to an article too quickly. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The relevant notability guideline here is WP:NEVENTS, and I'm not convinced that this earthquake satisfies that guideline. All that happened was some shaking, and according to local news, No injuries or major damages have been reported. [1] For this reason, this doesn't seem to pass WP:LASTING—it doesn't seem to have lasting significance. If the earthquake had caused significant damage or led to nontrivial changes in Detroit's earthquake preparedness, it might be a different story, but it doesn't appear to be the case. I'm disinclined to draftify because fundamentally the issue is lack of notability, and no amount of editing can overcome that issue, unfortunately. Mz7 (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While in principle I'd be happy to see this draftified to give the creating editor a chance to develop it further, given the apparently non-notable nature of the event, I can't quite see how it could be made notable? For that reason, even merging into the main Detroit Beach, Michigan article doesn't seem justified. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage doesn't show this was a notable event or was WP:LASTING. It happened, no injuries or damage, no impact other than people mentioning it for a short time. // Timothy :: talk 14:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftified. An occurrence of an edit conflict in which I was nominating for deletion in the same time a different editor was moving article to draftspace. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 22:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay Drum School

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

Non notable “drum school” organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in any reliable source. A before search only links me to their social media accounts(Facebook & LinkedIn) and other user generated sources. Celestina007 21:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 21:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 21:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 21:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 21:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 21:46, 28 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Baseer

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Of the provided sources, [2] ~~does not appear to mention the subject~~ provides a narrative description of Baseer but does not provide analysis, [3] is self-published and thus likely unreliable, in addition to only providing coverage in the form of religious narrative that may not comprise significant coverage, [4] does not provide significant coverage, and [5] provides narrative coverage of questionable significance (and is old enough that I would hesitate to use it as a reliable secondary source). I wasn't able to find any additional coverage searching for various likely spellings of his name (as well as the Arabic name), although there does appear to be a Salafi imam by the same name who may be notable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a companion of the prophet he’s likely to be notable. There’s an ar.wiki on him here which isn’t linked to the en.wiki version for some reason. It cites Ibn al-Athīr who is a reliable source. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Greetings, the first source does mention him as Abu Busir[6], he is mentioned in multiple works as a contemporary and companion of Mohamed and is invaluable in understanding the circumstances surrounding the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. His name is written in different ways, Abu Basir, Abu Busir, Abu Baseer or Abu Baser etc[7]. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't tried "Busir" as an alternative spelling. Still, from reading that portion it seems like a bare description of narrative. I don't see any analysis of Baseer's role beyond recounting the narrative of Muhammad's life. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually made the page since the page Abu Jandal ibn Suhayl mentions him 3 times. Also the same source on the Abu Jandal page mentions him too, History of the Prophets and Kings or in Arabic ( Tarikh al-Tabari ), Volume 8 [8]. Based on this i believe that there is no doubt that Abu Baseer is a notable historical figure according to WP:N, as he has received coverage in numerous works. He is also pivotal to understanding Islam in it's infancy. That's why I am for keeping his article. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - finds coverage in various Islamic history books. I have seen a good portion concerning him in Akbar Shah Najibabadi's Tārīkh-e-Islām. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Famous in Islamic history.— Hammad (Talk!) 16:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources now in the article and move to Abu Basir. Much more commonly transliterated that way. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis of the sources added. Mccapra (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Mister Fantastic

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

Unnecessary article split that goes into too much detail about in-universe subjects and fails to justify its existence through the reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once again, WP:GNG is determined by the existence of sources, not by whatever sources are or aren't in the article, per WP:DELREASON, WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:NNC. The crux of this nomination is "Unnecessary article split that goes into too much detail about in-universe subjects", seeing as "fails to justify its existence through the reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG" is irrelevant as far as deletion goes. Dark knight 2149 22:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149:: I don't see any RS or any discussion as a group that would make it pass LISTN. // Timothy :: talk 15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the argument is that "Sources don't exist, article fails WP:GNG, then the rationale should reflect that. "Fails to establish notability" implies that articles are being driveby nominated solely based on the state of sourcing in the article. Dark knight 2149 19:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FANCRUFT, fails WP:NFICTION/GNG, cited to WP:PRIMARY sources only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. Article itself is mostly (all) WP:OR based on primary sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a basic summary to Mister Fantastic. BOZ (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article that fails the WP:GNG. The difference between an "alternate" and "main" version isn't supported by reliable third-party sources. Certainly not enough to meet our notability standards, and possibly the original interpretation of a few editors. We shouldn't create endless spinouts of mostly in universe information. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG , the article is WP:FANCRUFT. Alex-h (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Oconee River#Crossings. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herschel Lovett Bridge

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

Non-notable generic highway bridge. Of the two sources in the article, one is a primary source bridge inventory form, and the other mentions this bridge in two sentences. This mentions the bridge in one sentence. I'm finding a few blogs and a bunch of mirrors besides those. It exists, but how does it pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND? Hog Farm _Bacon 21:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small generic bridge, no evidence of notability Reywas92^Talk 23:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those wondering why a nondescript bridge like this even has a name, there was a fad in the Georgia Legislature a few years ago where it they made it super easy to nominate a local person's name to be put on a piece of highway infrastructure. As a result nearly every bridge, highway ramp, interchange and roundabout in Georgia has a local person's name on it. It's a bit comical, really, almost worthy of an article itself as an annoying political phenomenon. --Krelnik (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GEOFEAT Nondescript bridges are not usually the subject of dedications. This one was dedicated in 1953. The bridge is featured prominently in a book about the county. 1 Lightburst (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that two sentences in a local history book count as significant coverage. If one newspaper article and a couple sentences in a local history book count as significant coverage, well, I can think of dozens of bridges in my home county that could get articles .... and 2/3's of them are all on gravel roads. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It certainly has its photographs on Google images, but has no inherent notability. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's a quite typical highway bridge with no real claim to notability made. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added a postcard image of Oconee River Bridge, which per User:Lightburst's link's 1952 photo is the bridge with a central truss section adjacent to the Herschel Lovett Bridge (under construction). As can be seen in Google satellite view, the previous bridge with central truss section was since removed. --Doncram (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, probably to Oconee River#Crossings, or "Keep" outright. It's not clear that this is terribly non-descript, and it is documented at least enough to be a list item. The topic could be expanded to cover, naturally, more about previous bridge(s) there even without renaming. Note none of the above !voters considered this option; hopefully they can update their !votes now considering this. I added a section for crossings to the Oconee River article. It is perfectly reasonable to have such a section. Note, it would probably be reasonable to have a list of bridges, highway ramps, interchanges, etc. which have been named by the Georgia Legislature; if that exists or is created now then that would be an alternative merger target. Better to merge/redirect than delete. --Doncram (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Doncram. I checked newspapers.com and found two sentences in one 1953 article about the dedication. I don't see enough to keep as a stand-alone article. There is a lot more about the "Oconee River Bridge" going back to the Civil War, some of which Doncram has added to Oconee River#Crossings. MB 02:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It is open to editors to take the normal editorial actions of merging or redirecting the content either of their own initiatives or by gaining consensus on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (pinball)

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

My PROD rationale was "Both the reference and the external link are to user-generated sources. I wouldn't consider [1] to be substantial coverage, as it's just basically a release year and an image. There's a similar game coming out in 2020, but the article explaining it has no real coverage about this game, and even that source may come from a user, which would render it unreliable per WP:VGRS. This is also about the upcoming game. The 1991 version, which this article is about, just ain't notable" This was removed by Andrew Davidson with the explanation "per WP:DEPROD." Well, since the deprodder revealed nothing useful, here this goes to AFD. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't ever see how this should be notable for its own article. Perhaps there is somewhere it could be merged to? Even then that's pushing it. Ajf773 (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of games released by Data East, verified entertainment product of a notable company. --Masem (t) 21:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Masem: - Except none of the content is cited inline, and the citations/external links are to user-generated sources, so "verified" is a bit of a strong word here. I see no problems with a redirect, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are books out there that document pinball machines ( I don't have them, so I can't check but I know they exist), links from this page [9] would lead to those sources, and the announcement of the 2020 game affirms there was this version [10]- not enough for an article obviously but enough to pass verification. --Masem (t) 22:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of games released by Data East' snce there is nothing useful to merge. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For an excellent, detailed review of the 1991 machine, see Joe's Classic Video Games. It looks very cool and so I can see why collectors will pay $5,000 or more for a good example. And now, in 2020, there's another TMNT machine generating a lot of buzz: IGN; Pinball News; This Week in Pinball; &c. So, we have plenty of notability and plenty of cool material to work with. The main thing we need are some good pictures but that's just the usual WP:IMPERFECT and not a reason to delete. Our policy WP:ATD states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." and so deletion is inappropriate. Cowabunga! Andrew🐢(talk) 10:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- First source is an unreliable review from a non-notable reviewer. Second is an announcement, third and fourth seem dubious. Even if the last two were notable, they're only announcements and not any substantial coverage (announcements do not indicate notability). Rather baffled by your comment that "The main thing we need are some good pictures", that has absolutely nothing to do with anything and doesn't explain how the article lacks any real sources. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not all pinball games are notable but this one is. -Masem and Andrew Davidson have presented sources which show the game is notable on its own. Myself I have located sources as well, in trade publications and elsewhere. We have enough to show WP:N Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nowhere did Masem say it was notable, he was merely pointing to a source that allowed it to be verified. All of these sources are unreliable or merely announcements, which do not count towards notability. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With its lack of reliable sources, there's no way this could pass WP:N. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of games released by Data East#Pinball games where it is already included. It definitely existed and there is a logical redirect target, but the coverage in reliable sources is not even close to being able to sustain an article. This may need to be re-examined in the future if the upcoming Stern produced machine with the same name garners any notability, but as the coverage on that machine is just limited to the initial announcement right now, it is irrelevant to this current AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more sourcing, but the verified claim that it was the second most popular Japanese pinball table of 1991 should suffice. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles video games. I've reviewed the aforementioned sources and they are either brief, tangential mentions, or unreliable sources. Together they do not constitute significant coverage. The few facts that need to be known about this can be said in the existing list. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Palestinian nationalism#From the river to the sea. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the River to the Sea

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

Non-notable album, with a title that is probably useless as a redirect. This has been in CAT:NN since 2010, and all I can find in the way of sources are published by the band, are user-generated, or are in unreliable blogs. From the BEFORE search, I've also determined that a Palestinian nationalism nationalism phrase is probably the primary topic, not this obscure album. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usually with non-notable albums I'd suggest redirecting to the artiste's page, but I agree with the nominator's rationale that this would serve no useful function. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palestinian nationalism#From the river to the sea: Barely found anything about the album. But, since it's a common phrase for Palestinians, a redirect to a part of the target article is the way to go as a valid WP:ATD. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 30 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. Mz7 (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stroker kit

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

Article about a type of aftermarket engine kit. Meets WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." // Timothy :: talk 20:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a one-sentence stub that does zero to establish why this subject is notable. There isn't even any sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the subject is important then someone can re-create at a later date. Not worth saving. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Rabkin

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

No sources, no evidence of notability. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't yet been able to verify this, but the article states (without a source, as the nom notes) that Rabkin won one of the Governor General's Awards. That would presumably be an indication of notability if it were verified, although I'm skeptical it would be enough to pass WP:ANYBIO. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there are a number of dead links here, and insufficent secondary references for notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim that he won a "Governor General's Medal" in 2005 is completely unsourced, and in fact even on searches of both Google and ProQuest I can find no sources at all to independently verify it outside of his own self-published PR — the problem being that the Canadian Governor General's office gives out annual awards in literally dozens of categories in very different domains of activity, not all of which are instant notability makers (the literary and performing arts awards yes, the community voluntarism awards no, etc.), so the mere statement that he's a medalist is not an instant notability freebie in the absence of any ability to verify what category he purportedly won in. And other than that, the article cites no other sources that are bolstering the case for inclusion at all — the contextless stack of external links is not media coverage about him, but consists almost entirely of primary sources (e.g. his staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers) which are not support for notability. And while I did find the deadlinked Terry Glavin piece that closes out the stack in ProQuest, it also isn't about Rabkin — it literally just namechecks his existence briefly as a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is something other than him, so it's not a GNG-building source either. Literally nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have exponentially better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Per non. No source of notability and even not sure if he could get to be in the next four years. (F5pillar---/ ^{'Messager🖋📩}) 22:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Baird

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

Procedural nom, as this was previously prodded. The subject of this article does not meet WP:NPROF, in my view. The claim in the article that she is a "university professor" is misleading. She is indeed a professor at Athens State University (see [11]), but not a university professor in the sense of a distinguished professor. Likewise, the claim that she is a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland is misleading, because you can pay to join the society as a "fellow". She is not an honorary fellow, which is the distinguished designation (see list here: [12]). Her book ([13]), coauthored with several others, was not published in a major university press. It's possibly self-published, actually, because the name of the press is the same as that of the (now indeffed) creator of this article Stmaurice1. Her publications are listed here: [14]. Most of the hits on Scholar are for a different Debra Baird, and there's nothing on JSTOR. Procedural note: I also just prodded Clan Baird Society Worldwide, the society she is apparently the head of. (Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clan Baird Society Worldwide following deprod.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any citations to the work that she is alleged to have published: Fails WP:Prof. Her publications are listed at Academia.edu, a commercial data base of dubious reputation. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. To add to the thorough WP:BEFORE of the nomination, I searched for but could not find any book reviews that might allow her to pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although at first glance it looked okay, but further digging shows less notable than appeared. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unfortunately I could not find enough citation for WP:Author, Alex-h (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Hegiste

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

Non notable sprinter, fails GNG and SNG both Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Gold medalist in Asian Games seems notable.Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Priyanjali singh:, Could you please let me knew which SNG criteria is passed with this "One Gold Medal" because I didn't find any and the article fails GNG as of now. I wish for a good SNG argument. Thanks - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest WP:NTRACK#3: "Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g., IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less-prestigious large-scale meets, e.g., Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race ... ". --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Priyanjali. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anybody desirous of recovering content under a redirect for the purpose of merging can request this at WP:REFUND without further reference to me. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WCTC Shopping Center

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." WP:BEFORE showed WP:ROUTINE coverage, but not significant coverage that addressed the subject directly and in-depth or that established it meets NBUILD. // Timothy :: talk 19:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing of significance for this place. Ajf773 (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination, nothing significant here -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apparently "houses the largest department store in the country" isn't a claim to notability? It clearly is, and the sources bear this out. Other sources also claim it to be the largest in Palau, itself a valid enough claim to warrant keeping. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. Nothing that makes the place notable. Alex-h (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Koror City. This is a three story center with a large grocery store and 10 stores total. Can't find sig coverage. But as a big/well known place in the city, it should be mentioned there. The parent company (West Caroline Trading Company) is a much bigger enterprise and has an interesting history - having been formed after a US initiative to grow the private economy when Palau was administered by the US Navy after WWII. But we have no article on the company either. Merge per WP:ATD. MB 17:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Palau only has a population of ~18k, so it's not like "largest mall in the country" is a big claim. I didn't find coverage in RS, but I didn't look extremely hard. Another redirect/merge target could be Economy of Palau; I imagine it's up there in terms of the country's retailers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Koror City as someone suggested sounds like a good idea. Otherwise, delete. On its own it is not notable. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: since there is an RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you, // Timothy :: talk 07:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was G7 deleted by admin Cryptic after nomination here. (non-admin closure) - hako9 (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smruthi Venkat

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

A GNG and SNG fail. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page can be speedily deleted because I am the author and agreed to deletion. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smruthi venkat - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:21, 29 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. Discounting the comment about the author. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whisper Lake

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

A small man-made "landscaping feature" exclusively located within a trailer park in Florida. The three citations all appear to either be clickbait junk, non-substantial coverage, or associated with the people running the trailer park. I'm not finding anything better. WP:GEOLAND treats many lakes as notable, but it seems a touch ridiculous to expand that to "landscaping features" located within trailer parks. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I've seen this person's articles before, several have already been deleted. This is a tiny generic retention pond, not a lake. Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is an improper observation in a delete discussion. The discussion is about the article, not the author. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the author of the article in question. I explained in my talk page when the idea of deletion first came up that I had the impression when I wrote this article that the bodies of water would be expanded and that more documentation would be forthcoming. Since none of that happened, I was not contesting a deletion at that time. If anyone has written 200 to 300 articles a handful will be deleted, so I think it misleading to say that several of my articles have been deleted before. Bill Pollard (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unimportant pond, the references are about the surrounding Whisper Lake Mobile Home Community (and don't suggest that the mobile home community is notable either). power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as above, an unimportant pond. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable feature, but the author's work is generally good. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Five-fret stretch

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

I don't see why the concept of a five-fret stretch is notable. There's no page for four fret stretches, and beyond that, there is only one source, that doesn't seem to serve a purpose. JJPMaster (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. JJPMaster (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe crosswiki to stretch if we have any sourcing? Wikipedia Is Not a Guitar-Playing Workbook. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first sentence to Guitar chord and redirect (not sure where though). The rest is just a guitar tutorial. As a side note, the guitar chord article would benefit by splitting out some of its sections. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. I can't see an obvious redirect target. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:15, 30 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 16:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chetan Gawande

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

This is a one-sentence stub about a mayor of a small municipality in India. The sourcing is all in Marathi, and a helpful editor who speaks it confirmed that the sources do not appear to establish notability and may not even be WP:RS. I have managed to find only one English-language secondary source that mentions the subject (here), but this also does little more than simply acknowledge the election result. If someone can find sources for the subject's notability, we can expand and keep the article, but at present, I'm not sure that's possible. Armadillo pteryx 02:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep First source Lokmat is a reliable source, leading newspaper of Marathi. The person is elected a mayor for five years of city of ~600000 population. Not much information available at present, but the article may build gradually over time. GD (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see anything in the sourcing that shows the subject satisfies WP:NPOL? Being an elected official at the city level is not, by itself, enough to establish notability. Armadillo pteryx 23:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete disagree that the first source indicates notability. Although the newspaper might be a reliable (local) newspaper, the coverage is routine: any elected official would've gotten the same brief "they were elected" statement. Shivashree, the argument "the article may build gradually over time" is not a valid argument against deletion: see WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability; doesn't automatically meet NPOL Spiderone 22:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Local body officials do not satisfy NPOL. However, they might receive adequate coverage in their term. In the absence of WP:SIGCOV, I'm tending to leaning delete. --Ab207 (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VSXu

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

I think this fails WP:NSOFT. Prod contested by an IP who added this to the article. Looks like an interview with the founders. After I removed deadlinks, all the other sources are to current or archived versions of its website. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete arguments to keep are a form of special pleading. We use published sources, not thesis drafts. We don't care that these users don't write peer reviewed papers or books published by well-established publishing houses about their experiences with said software we simply note that there is no scholarly interest in the subject, and no mainstream source have take notice. Until that happens, no amount of users can change the fact that there are no independent, reliable sources that can be used to verify the article's content. Vexations (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : There is this article mentioning they used VSXu in their research: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8907207

And this thesis draft: http://mtiid.calarts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/GabrielRG_Thesis_draft_forsubmission_FINALFORPRINT.pdf Also this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.2868.pdf And this: https://phaidra.kug.ac.at/open/o:60753 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawvvd (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Possibly another factor that you can weigh in is that there are not many projects / actors in the music/audio visualization "market" and while (disclaimer) I am one of the developers of VSXu, I would still like to have a good listing of, and good articles about other projects that operate within this segment. If wikipedia by policy is to treat music visualization software as not notable enough, then maybe most or all individual pages for software listed on the Music_visualization page should be merged / removed instead of allowing a page for each one. Just a listing of the software and link to their home pages, or no links at all. A lot (if not all) of them have, and are going to continue to have, this same "notability issue"/"primary sources issue" simply because the market for any of these products is small and they are not mainstream - neither in the scientific community nor in the public eye. Thus it is highly unlikely that say, The New York Times, will ever write about any of these, or any articles ever being published in any source that is peer reviewed. However, while not mainstream, the documents listed above clearly show that the field (not VSXu in particular, others were used as well - as they should be) is an active topic within high schools and universities. Students use these software programs to do research. In addition, several tens of thousands of home users / professional video / audio artists / streamers / DJ's / VJ's use them to enjoy or produce entertainment. The problem (from wikipedia's perspective) is that these users (of the software projects) don't write peer reviewed papers or books published by well-established publishing houses about their experiences with said software. Considering that music visualizers is a form of casual entertainment, requiring or even suggesting this of end users is preposterous and far removed from reality. Thus, it is easy to argue that the notability requirements that wikipedia puts in place makes it close to impossible to prove notability and is therefore not a good metric when applied to music visualizers. Now, having been active in this market since 1999, it's my opinion that wikipedia has no rival when it comes to providing generic written information about these projects. Finally, it is my strong opinion that allowing for and improving articles within this area of wikipedia (rather than decimating it) is most beneficial for its readers. Jawvvd (talk) 12:18, 14 August 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 (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify article meets WP:DRAFTIFY criterion 4 based on above comment and promotional nature of article. User can attempt to meet notability via AfD process. Jawvvd, you should not edit the article further since you have a conflict of interest. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines and does not have significant coverage. While I feel this might be a good software, it was just released in 2020, so maybe it can be reconsidered when there is more news coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : "ExpertWikiguy", "Latest Stable Release Date" is not the same as "Initial Release Date". The latter was back in 2003-2004 and the wikipedia article was added 10 years ago. Feel free to improve the article if you like, I apparently shouldn't. — Preceding Jawvvd (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Seems to be the more supported target Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NTIA Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Manuals, especially professionals, are very rarely notable. Additionally, its impact is low, citation-wise (GS suggests 3-9 total cites). So, no evidence of any serious impact or use. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Spectrum_management#United_States. The term redbook is mentioned somewhat e.g. [15] and [16]. While not significant enough to merit an independent article, there is some coverage so merits existing as part of Spectrum management. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Telecommunications and Information Administration . Clearly this is an influential regulatory text in specialized fields. I don't think we have enough to say about it to justify its own page, but it's a useful redirect. pburka (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I would support the above merge target as well. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with National Telecommunications and Information Administration: NTIA is responsible for spectrum management, so this is the appropriate merge page. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G.B. "Dip" Lamkin Bridge

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

Non-notable bridge, has been in CAT:NN since 2014. I've seen no guideline that declares all 30-ft long bridges notable, and I'd disagree with it if there were one. The one source in the article is a primary source to a government bridge inventory. This piece only mentions the bridge in one sentence. Everything else I'm finding appears to be WP mirrors. Fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. This user has created 19 other articles on minor generic road bridges that should also be considered for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 20:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those not familiar with Georgia politics, a few years ago the state government went through a phase where they started slapping names on every bridge, interchange, highway segment and so on, for who knows what reason. It is actually somewhat comical. --Krelnik (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant news coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Had an Accident

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

This is a split album that doesn't appear to have received any significant coverage in reliable sources. Neither of the bands featured have articles. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Important releases in their underground community and it is sourced.Soul Crusher (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Soul Crusher (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. The "sources" are the record label's website, the liner notes of the album itself, and an interview with one of the bands on a blog, so none of the sources are independent or pass WP:RS. Article creator asserts notability, but provides no evidence of it. Richard3120 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This source which the author recently added to this and other articles he created mentions a fanzine titled Baby Had an Accident. It references this split release but the claims by the article creator that the publication calls the album "dark and sinister" are false, as that description is about the fanzine. The author is attempting to fabricate its notability. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the fanzine is also written by the person who runs the record label that this record was released on. So as well as not being an RS, effectively the fanzine was named after his own release. Richard3120 (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Morning Call is a RS. Is there any way--or does enough coverage exist--to combine the Sin Factor, Factor 42, etc., articles into one? Skeptical, but maybe. Caro7200 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Caro7200: The Morning Call is an RS, but the article is about a fanzine produced by the same person who released the album on his own label, so very much a primary source. Richard3120 (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: I don't see how this reference is being used incorrectly. It's still only one reference, but the reference itself is fine. Caro7200 (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Caro7200: But the article is still nothing to do with this album, it's talking about the fanzine of the same name. There's only one sentence in the whole article about the album, "The cassette itself comes wrapped in a fake soiled diaper." The article would probably be better used as evidence of notability for GPC Productions, which this editor has also created, but it's difficult to see how a cassette attached to a local fanzine with a print run of only 250 copies is widely notable. Richard3120 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: I think Soul Crusher and myself think that the specific sentence used as a reference refers to the album...but since the zine and the album have the same name, it's hard to tell completely. I don't think there is enough to keep this, but, like I wrote above, and if the sources exist, perhaps Soul Crusher's recent articles can fall under a GPC article (it currently links back to a different album) or something related. Caro7200 (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:XY. Barely found anything about the album aside from an interview which partially talks about it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Click on the red-linked band names in this article, and you will find that they were previously associated with another album that was deleted earlier today at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Factor. It's tough to tell what actually happened with the history of all the deletions and redirects, but note all the red links currently in this article. Everyone associated with the album, from the two bands to the members of those bands to the producers, have been deemed non-notable elsewhere in Wikipedia. Procedure-wise, this album is probably eligible for speedy deletion per WP:A9. Regardless, everyone recommending deletion above is correct about the poor sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:31, 31 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. Weak keep is keep Tone 18:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LU KALA

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

Ref spammed & bombed article on a musician who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO & generally lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search only links me to primary or unreliable sources without editorial oversight. Celestina007 15:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celestina007, I understand your reasons for deletion however I have edited the article and added additional content about her charting song and 1st place in the RBC Emerging Music Program (see edits [17] and [18], both of which combined satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Please get back to me with a re-review of the article. Thanks, --Pulisi (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pulisi in the edits you highlight you didn't add any sources. Could you specify what part of WP:MUSICBIO, and by which sources, is satisfied? Sam-2727 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Doomsdayer520 said well, she won a music award which satisfies WP:NMUSICIAN in my opinion, although I am a relitivly new editor in terms of edit count so I'm happy to learn from those more experienced. The content which I think satisfies WP:NMUSICIAN is:

[LU] also won the grand prize at the RBC's Emerging Musician Program,^[1] which gives her $10,000 worth of studio time among other prizes.^[2]

Thanks, --Pulisi (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Since this has been sitting around for three weeks, I figured I'd be a good samaritan and help wrap it up. Alas, I don't know if a "weak keep" helps much, but the singer has received some legitimate notice. In its current state the article is preposterously ref-bombed to useless promo sites and streaming services, but there are a few legitimate sources in there, particularly a write-up by Complex and some stories from the publishing arm of the Canadian Society of Composers (SOCAN), which gave her an award. I think this just barely gets her past #1 and (maybe) #9 at WP:NMUSICIAN. The article certainly needs to be cleaned up though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Robertson (comedian)

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

The page creator has submitted the page from draft and been declined due to lack of significant coverage, but has gone ahead and moved it into mainspace anyway. I can't find anything to demonstrate per WP:ENTERTAINER that this comedian has had the depth of coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found reviews of Robertson's show in The Sunday Times Magazine, The Age and The Plymouth Evening Herald, which I added to the article in a Reception section. I think that the reviews in Chortle and British Comedy Guide also look legitimate to me. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added further information and sources supporting point 2 of WP:ENTERTAINER showing the subject having performed at thousand-seater venues, prestigious comedy venues, and statistics on his internet following to demonstrate his 'large fan base and cult following' as required MogVult (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2020 (BST). Further information on television presenting and review by Dennis Publishing's Den Of Geek to underline WP:ENTERTAINER added MogVult (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2020 (BST). Experience as a video games consultant added to support WP:ENTERTAINER added MogVult (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2020 (BST)
Keep - Toughpigs and Mogvult make good points. Deus et lex (talk) 00:30, 30 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Joker (venues chain)

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

The page has no citation, also it hasn't any important citation on Internet and looks like an article for advertisement. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep A REALLY quick research shows that this company has organized a lot of concerts where famous Turkish artists have performed. Sources from major Turkish publishers: Milliyet [19] [20], Hürriyet [21] [22] [23] and Vatan [24]. According to one of the sources, they planned to organize 51 concerts in March 2020 (though not sure if they really did due to Covid-19). ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 11:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Styyx: yes; but they look like written for advertisement, not verifying notability.Ahmetlii (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually see enough coverage on national newspapers to vote in favor of keeping it. I also expanded the article a little bit using the text available on the Turkish Wikipedia and introduced new sources that could potentially justify its notability. Keivan.f^Talk 22:12, 29 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) 10:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blakes Landing, California

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

Durham calls it a locality named after rancher who owned the land. No evidence that it was a community. Does not meet basic standard for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a community. Reywas92^Talk 19:25, 31 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. Tone 18:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Murder, She Wrote guest stars

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Information not reliable and not worth a merge. Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Can you elaborate on what “information [is] not reliable”, and why you think that? Also we need an analysis on this as a WP:SPLIT from the parent article. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, user:Postdlf, sorry, I didn't word that well. There is a huge amount of unreferenced information in this article, and it is really difficult as it stands to see what is accurate. As for the split, this isn't notable enough for an article on its own or significant enough for a big section in the main article, imo. Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still don’t know what specifically you think is unreliable. Every entry cites which episodes. What parts do you think are unverifiable? And as for whether this subtopic merits this kind of detail, I’m not familiar enough with the series to draw a conclusion; some lists of guest stars have been kept at AFD depending on the series. What do you base your conclusion on? postdlf (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources that I can find that discuss the topic in depth, and nothing that discusses them as a set, so it fails WP:LISTN as a stand alone list. And, as the actors here are not notable for being a guest star in Murder, She Wrote, it also does not serve much of a purpose as a navigational tool. Rorshacma (talk) 17:21, 28 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bedroom Eyes (musician)

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

Too few WP:RS for this myspace artist. Geschichte (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep: the artist has released two further albums since the article was updated, The Long Wait Champion in 2010 and Greetings from Northern Sweden in 2017, and these have been reviewed in the newspapers Nya Wermlands-Tidningen [25]], Arbetarbladet [26], Länstidningen i Östersund [27], and in the magazines Gaffa [28] and Sonic (which appears to be a reliable source) [29]. My concern is that the newspapers are more local papers than national ones, and I don't know much about the magazines. Richard3120 (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the coverage in multiple reliable sources detailed above that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.585 Gehringer

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

Non-notable cartridge. Of the two sources in the article, one is to what appears to be an unreliable reloading forum/blog, and the other is to a book published by CreateSpace, which is a self-publishing company. [30] only mentions the .585 Gehringer in one sentence. This is a mirror so blatant it even keeps the ammunition stub tag with "improve Wikipedia" at the bottom. This book is based on Wikipedia content. This is an unreliable forum. Everything else I'm finding is either in web forums or in WP mirrors. Not notable, and has been tagged as such since 2014. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I put this page in for 149.135.122.72, so I will support its continued inclusion on their bahalf. It is pretty unlikely we can track down the original author. The argument will be that Wikipedia is better off with this article than without. Unfortunately link-rot has lost us access to the first reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can see are mirrors and forums. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely fails WP:GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 23:25, 31 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. General consensus is that the topic is notable. A merge "into one better and larger article" can be discussed outside of AFD Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Workers Organisation (Marxist–Leninist)

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

No sources or references of any kind have been used or cited in these articles for over 12 years, they fail to reach Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and lead to confusion due to other organisations with the same name having their own articles on Wikipedia. Seems more appropriate for these minor organisations to have a sentence or two on the pages for their respective country's socialist movements (if sources can be found for this) rather than entire articles of their own.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons listed above:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the deletion rationale contradicts itself. If article are deleted, the risk of confusion between different organizations with same/similar names increase. The Maoist movement played an important role in the 1970s counterculture youth movements, but suffers from having collapsed pre-world wide web. As per KAO(ml) is hardly impossible to source. See for example https://www.hdc.vu.nl/nl/Images/Mao_in_de_Polder_tcm215-177879.pdf , which details that KAO(ml) played a prominent role in the 1979 Rotterdam dock strike, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232479451.pdf outlines that the group had 50 members by 1981 (by this point the Maoist movement had declined). Notably the party was significant enough for Dutch intelligence to infiltrate... --Soman (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in favour of deletion: Not contradictory at all - I don't see how mentioning these minor and long defunct organisations "on the pages for their respective country's socialist movements" would increase confusion? Reducing the amount of poorly written pages about small Maoist and Stalinist groups would only help reduce confusion. Since no one bothered to include any sources on these pages for a dozen years or so, it is pretty clear that these might have been written by a former member using own knowledge - which is problematic for a number of reasons in Wikipedia. The other CWO, in the UK, is at least a functioning organisation with significance as one of the few functioning left communist groups in Europe, whereby finding English-language sources about it is not as much of an issue. The same cannot be said for all these Marxist-Leninist parties and groups all around the world, which are a dime a dozen. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd said that KAOml was like more relevant than CWO... so by your argument we should delete CWO(UK), to avoid confusion with KAOml? --Soman (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman and untrue. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The "Kommunistische Arbeiders Organisatie" was notable enough to be mentioned in a couple of pages in a security report from "BINNENLANDSE VEILIGHEIDSDIENST" (I take this to be a department of "Internal Security" or something of that nature), and if they were seen notable enough for such a report then, they would most likely still live up to the norms for notability here on Wikipedia. Yes both this article and the Dutch article on the same matter fails to provide any sources, but a quick search on the internet seem to reveal, that the relevant sources is kept in one or more archieves in The Netherlands - though I'm not the one going to this country in the near future to have a closer look at these sources. :-) Oleryhlolsson (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And the article about "Kommunistische Arbeidersorganisatie" (1972-1978) that was the precursor of "Kommunistische Arbeiders Organisatie" (1978-1990) delivers an important story as one of the many strange movements on the (radical) left in the political landscape of the 1970s. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If someone who is impartial and fluent in Dutch could have a look at these sources to confirm whether this is in fact notable enough, then I'd agree that maybe the articles could be merged instead or something. As of right now, no convincing argument has been made as to why these completely unsourced and unprofessional articles shouldn't be converted into a section at a page like Socialism in the Netherlands. Although that article also appears completely devoid of sources, which might reveal a more worrying and larger agenda here? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to deletion: In all honesty, all three of these organisations are probably about as notable as each other, being relatively small groups that were all formed in the early to mid '70s. The only way that CWO could be seen as more notable than the Dutch groups is due to the fact that it has survived up to this day and is a part of the ICT, which according to their website seems to have sections in like 6 different countries and contacts in many others. It would be a shame to see historical information of these Dutch groups disappear from Wikipedia, that is why I am for incorporating info about them elsewhere. An alternative that both of you might agree with is merging the two articles together and having an intro section about the origins of one organisation as the other, much like the ICT section in the CWO (UK) article for example. For another instance, look at National Radical Camp - it's an article about not only a much older group than any of these, but not only one yet three different organisations with the same name and historical roots. Would it not make sense to combine Communist Workers Organisation (Marxist–Leninist) and Communist Workers Organisation (Netherlands) into one better and larger article?

One thing is for sure, these articles cannot remain on Wikipedia in their current shape any longer. It has been 12 years. Much better quality new pages are being rejected every day for way less serious issues. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and certain standards must be met; using sources to back up statements is the absolute minimum. No one has bothered to do this for a dozen years in either of these articles. Either they are reworked with extensive citations and sources, preferably merged into one article as is the case with most other small organisations like this on Wikipedia, or they will be deleted because they fail to meet the most basic of standards for this website. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've now added literature for the article about Communist Workers Organisation (Marxist–Leninist). It was evident from "De Rode Jehova's" by Gerrit Voerman that the book Nederlands Kommunisme. Gebundelde opstellen from 1982 might be the most important book on the subject. Apart from this, we can now identify a number of sources that mentions "Kommunistische Arbeidersorganisatie". At least three reports from BVD (Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst (1949-2002)): BINNENLANDSE VEILIGHEIDSDIENST - PANORAMA - periode 1 oktober 1978 - 1 april 1979, KWARTAALOVERZICHT - Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst - Ie KWARTAAL 1979 & BINNENLANDSE VEILIGHEIDSDIENST. PANORAMA. periode 1 april - 1 oktober 1984 with the Ie KWARTAAL 1979 giving the most detailed account. Furthermore there are the Mao in de polder - Een historisch-sociologische benadering van het Nederlandse maoïsme 1964-1978, and then there are also a number of news(paper) articles about KAO. A little about the political 'climate' of these days in BN DeStem, 11-08-17 - Nico Schapendonk: "Een leven van actie, solidariteit en af en toe een confrontatie met bevoegd gezag", and further articles: Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant (PZC), 28 juli 1976: "Bezwaar tegen villa in Rotterdam" (p. 3) & Het Vrije volk, 3 december 1986: "Toch kindern van Piramide naar Blijvliet" (p. 2. In the archieves there are also material to be found.

Archief Kommunistische Eenheidsbeweging Nederland (marxistisch-leninistisch) in Amsterdam has various material on KAO/KAO(ml):

OVERIGE STUKKEN EN DOCUMENTATIE

95 Enkele pamfletten, een brochure over Oost-Timor en exemplaren van het ledenblad van de KAO (ml). 1973, 1980, z.d. 1 map

KAOml

163-164 Stukken van de Kommunistiese Arbeidersorganisatie-ml afdeling Breda en de Kommunistiese Kring Breda-ml. 1973-1982. 2 mappen

165 Ledenbladen van de KAOml. 1973-1982. 1 pak

Het Staatsarchief has a page with "Pamfletten wonen en kraken 1978 - 1979 - Amsterdamse pamflettenkatalogus, and somewhere in this loooong list should Kommunistische Arbeidersorganisatie also be mentioned.

So before we do anything else, my advise would be to use the sources at hand to improve the article(s) and to add relevant source references to the text. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, this will definitely be useful for improving this article. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Initially I only made searches for "Kommunistische Arbeidersorganisatie" & "Kommunistische Arbeiders Organisatie" not for neither Kommunisten Kring Rijnmond nor Kommunistische Organisatie Rotterdam en Omstreken, so my search wasn't 'complete' in any sense. If you wan't to learn more about original material from these and other organisations you can go to International Institute of Social History / Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis and enter the name of the organisation you want to learn more about in their Search Field then you will end up with lists of various original material from these organisations. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is of historical significance.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Solomon High School

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

Hardly any reliable sources available and the one from Greater Kashmir doesn't ascertain any facts but says that that the school has "felicitated its students who participated in the recently concluded 5th National High Altitude Sqay camp at Pahalgam." Not a WP:GNG pass. By WP:NSCHOOL , "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both." It doesn't satisfy either one. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Greater Kashmir ref is worse than a press release. No other sources to be found. High schools in India usually are not notable. This one is no exception. SD0001 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 10:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Bard

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

Close call on this one. A (so-called) psychic apparently relied upon by Brad Pitt who was indeed the subject of one profile in Forbes ([31]), but nothing else sustained I can find. There's [32] (reprint of an interview) and a couple of namedrops in [33] from The Guardian. And, of course, the usual hits in deprecated or unreliable tabloids like Express and the Daily Mail. For a WP:FRINGE personality like this, I'd like to see better sourcing than seems available. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Forbes profile was promising, but other than that I can't find anything at all outside of unreliable sources and celebrity (Brad Pitt) gossip — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know Japanese but apparently he was on Japanese TV shows, perhaps some sources are available in relation to that, in case someone can find such... —Paleo Neonate – 00:04, 30 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. Tone 18:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Five Brooks, California

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

Durham calls it a locality; old topo maps show a couple nearby structures and nothing else. There is a Five Brooks Ranch in the vicinity; Glendoremus (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:GEOLAND as the place has non trivial coverage. 100.37.166.70 (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out the non-trivial coverage. I've found nothing but click-bait ads and coverage of the nearby riding stables. Glendoremus (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Point Reyes Station: WP:GEOLAND "informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.", there is nothing that meets non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If someone feels it merit mention, the sentence could be copied into Point Reyes Station. // Timothy :: talk 01:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Pretty obviously a locale, possibly named after the predecessor of one of the stables but I cannot tell for sure. I can't see any Pt. Reyes redirect seeing as how it's not part of the park and is otherwise an isolated area, nowhere near Point Reyes Station. Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable community, no benefit of a redirect to a page that should not mention this. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 31 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 Novato, California. Not much discussion, but this seems uncontroversial. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gallinas, California

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

Durham calls it a locality on the Northwestern Pacific RR. No indication that it was ever a community. Does not pass basic tests for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Novato, California: WP:GEOLAND "informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources.", there is nothing that meets non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If someone feels it merit mention, the sentence could be copied into Novato, California. // Timothy :: talk 01:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 28 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Venkatachari

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

An apparently non-notable business exec. He's associated with some notable VCs and companies—e.g., New Enterprise Associates and U.S. Bancorp—but I'm not seeing evidence of notability in his own right. Crunchbase profile: [34]; Bloomberg exec profile: [35] AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be LinkedIn. With us letting unsourced articles stand for 16 years it is hard to credibly claim that Wikipedia is not any of the things we want it not to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTLINKEDIN, also the tone of the article is somewhat promotional, might meet the G11 and A7 criteria of CSD as well. Dede2008 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley Bolton

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

This is a BLP. Most of its sources are dead links, but I used internet archive to check them - there is a press release from her employer, a short interview with no framing or analysis, (see WP:INTERVIEW), and the subject's LinkedIn profile. In the external links section is another interview published on a blog, and a 'meet the team' page of a company she founded. I have searched for better sourcing, but have drawn a blank. The subject does not pass WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a paucity of independent, reliable secondary sources indicates a failure of WP:NPROF while the winning of a non-notable award is insufficient to pass WP:ANYBIO. ——Serial 18:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources whatsoever – those in the page are (1) a PRnewswire press-release (2) an "interview" (probably another press-release) and (3) LinkedIn. No hits on GBooks, one mention on GNews (The Times), nothing on Scholar, nothing on JSTOR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User talk:Travfurler may be of interest or even relevance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Charmk (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's sources, but people can't agree on whether they're WP:SIGCOV or just passing mentions. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Hirsch

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

This may be a BLP. Most of the content is referenced to FBI investigative reports of the J. Edgar Hoover era, which I do not consider reliable nor of use for establishing the notability of a person. My search for coverage in reliable sources shows that she was a member of SDS and the Weatherman, but those were passing mentions and I could not find any significant coverage of her as a person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m seeing a great number of hits in Google books but they’re almost all snippet views so it’s hard to know what depth they offer. Coverage is certainly extensive however. Mccapra (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agree with Mccapra, certainly more results than Ashley, who, as Cullen328 mentioned in that AfD, mostly appears in lists of names. I read Days of Rage years ago--she shows up there; a lot of coverage is going to be tied to late '60s/'70s newspaper and magazine stories. Caro7200 (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, I pulled out my ancient copy of "SDS", by Kirkpatrick Sale, a 752 page book about the organization. Phoebe Hirsch is mentioned just twice, both in footnotes. One footnote is a long list of SDS members involved in early planning for the Venceremos Brigade, and the second footnote is a list of 1969 NIC candidates. Hirsch was elected as an alternate, and later joined the NIC when someone else resigned. So, she is not discussed in the body of this book, just mentioned fleetingly in the footnotes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just did an online search of "Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity", a book by Dan Berger. As far as I can see, Hirsch is not mentioned at all in that book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I say this respectfully, as you've helped me out at the Teahouse (which I appreciated) and, from looking at your userpage, you know a lot about this period of history: She clearly wasn't among the most "important" SDS or Weatherman members. She is covered in many sources, although a majority may be small mentions. I could find even more than what is available through Google at the academic library where I work, if I wanted to expend the effort of going through databases and microfilm--which I don't. I think the frustrating thing with AfDs is that, depending on the AfD, they swing wildly from "X is covered in enough RS!" to more nuanced debates, or ruminations on editors' personal notability standards and Wiki-philosophies...see the Ella German and Alyssa Carson ones as well... Caro7200 (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few extremely passing mentions do not establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been a lot of commenting, but only one !vote beyond the nom. Some discussion about whether the mentioned coverage satisfies N is merited.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a borderline case but without a clear consensus to delete, I think we should keep it. Mccapra (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:BLPSOURCES. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be enough (offline) news coverage of her 1960s activities to justify an article. Moreover, she has apparently published well-regarded scholarly work in recent years as Phoebe Dubin or Phoebe Hirsch-Dubin (see [36], [37], enough to tip the balance to notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Almighty Trigger Happy

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

Found as part of CAT:NN cleanup, where much help is needed. Currently, this article is sourced to Discogs, which is user generated; a literal Google search; an unreliable cd sales site; a band booking site that is listed in the external links as the bands official site; an article in Exclaim that is about the death of a band member and only contains four sentences of coverage about this band; and a dead link. The AllMusic page contains only a partial discography, and no band biography. This is a brief statement that a band member is part of a stage production, it contains only about half a sentence of content about the band. This is an interview, which does not contribute to notability. I'm not finding anything else that even approximates substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The band name was familiar, I am certain I have heard of them before and I have noticed they have a cult following - but not in reliable media. The sources presented does not establish any notability (seriously, a CD sales page, and the general results of a Google search?!) If notable sites like PunkNews or Canadian Beats wrote about them, they just wrote about one of the members' death (PN) and the other (CB) did an interview with the band which does not contribute to notability either and they did not cover the band in-depth. But anyways, I looked them up and couldn't find anything else besides the usual junk sites and the ones already presented here. So, in conclusion, they have been active for a long time but it seems no reliable media have taken the time to actually write about them (which is not an interview or brief news about the death of a member) so they are not notable for WP inclusion. They released several albums on notable labels, so I find it strange that I haven't found a single reliable source. Also, the article was created by a single-purpose account whose sole Wikipedia activity this was. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:51, 28 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. No valid arguments made towards for the merge and it is single vote against the keep vote where participants agree (come in consensus) with AleatoryPonderings. I find nothing to close this as a redirect cum merge. Hence keeping this. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Regional Real Estate Board

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. WP:BEFORE showed WP:ROUTINE local coverage, but not WP:SIGCOV / WP:IS that covers the subject directly and in depth which would indicate that the subject is "worthy of note". // Timothy :: talk 08:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Toronto real estate is a buzzy topic so it gets hits, but [38] is the only thing approaching SIGCOV I could find, and it's not good enough. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, with thanks to Mindmatrix for reminding me to search under the old name. Here are some sources. NB: I found most on ProQuest; these are major papers so they're probably on Newspapers.com/similar, but I don't have access to that.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]

References

^ "Canada's Walk of Fame". Canada's Walk of Fame. Retrieved 13 August 2020.
^ Ruta, Mike (1 November 2018). "Ajax singer LU connects with 'Don't Count Me Out'". DurhamRegion.com. Retrieved 13 August 2020.
^ Perkins, Tara (2014-07-25). "Top court move reignites Toronto Real Estate Board battle". The Globe and Mail. ISSN 0319-0714.
^ Johnson, Karen (2013-05-14). "Competition Bureau Appeals Ruling in Toronto Real-Estate Board Case". The Wall Street Journal.
^ "Toronto Real Estate Board cracks down on realtors sharing sales data". The Globe and Mail. 2018-08-29. ISSN 0319-0714.
^ Melnitzer, Julius (2014-02-05). "Federal court says Toronto Real Estate Board subject to Competition Act". National Post. ISSN 1486-8008.
^ "Toronto Real Estate Board's survival at stake: battle over listing service". National Post. 2000-09-13. ISSN 1486-8008.
^ The Canadian Press (September 26, 2017). "Toronto Real Estate Board raises concerns about possible vacancy tax". CBC News.
^ Noakes, Susan (September 18, 2018). "TREB says it has released disputed real estate data". CBC News.
^ "Toronto Real Estate Board wins extension days before deadline to publish home sales data online". CBC News. July 29, 2016.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are more hits using the organization's previous name. (For example, in Real Estate Riches: A Money-Making Game Plan for the Canadian Investor and Commercial Real Estate Investing in Canada: The Complete Reference for Real Estate Professionals.) There are also hits for "TREB" and "TREBnet" on Google News (though many of these are press releases). This also warrants a search of (Canadian) newspaper archives, given the age of this organization. Mind matrix 18:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The change from TREB to TRREB does indeed cause some difficulty in finding articles. With that said, I'd recommend considering them one and the same (it's just a name change). In terms of recent articles referencing the new name, regional and national newspapers are regularly releasing monthly trend reports, for example: ^[1] references TRREB in the opening article. In terms of articles critical of TRREB, there's this one from a few days ago:^[2]

References

^ "Toronto housing market roars back to life in July — with prices shooting up by 17%". thestar.com. 6 August 2020.
^ Kalinowski, Tess (18 August 2020). "TRREB cut off its listings data to property search site Bungol two weeks ago. The website still doesn't know why". thestar.com.

Dhritzkiv (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sure it is a fine organization, but the above sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. The question is what makes this entity stand out for an entry in an encyclopedia per WP:N? I'd be glad to switch to keep if there is something beyond WP:ROUTINE; if I'm missing something, please let me know. // Timothy :: talk 17:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the coverage of this org is routine, it's true—especially given how breathless TO real estate coverage can be—but I have trouble seeing how the sources in the two {{reflist-talk}} templates above are routine. I count three decent-size articles in CBC News, Canada's national broadcaster, that feature the org in the headline. Here's another: [39]. IMV, "routine" in this context means something like "associated with regular, generic events" such as quarterly housing data reports. While some of these articles reference those reports, they don't seem like generic coverage that WP:ROUTINE is intended to weed out. It's an arguable point, though. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AleatoryPonderings. MB 01:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Toronto My first choice is delete, but Merge is acceptable as a compromise second choice; it works as well as a delete and editors at the merge target can work on it. // Timothy :: talk 03:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I find that an implausible merge target. This is a trade association unaffiliated with the city government. An organization's being located in a city is not grounds to merge it to the article on the city. If we had something like Housing in Toronto or Real estate in Toronto (articles I have considered creating on more than one occasion, btw; this AfD might persuade me to take the plunge …) those would be appropriate merge targets. But Toronto itself seems like a real reach. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources presented by AleatoryPonderings and others demonstrate a pass of GNG, no reasonable merge target is present. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N Based on sources brought to this AfD. Thanks to AleatoryPonderings and others. Wm335td (talk) 18:09, 31 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 08:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extrapreneur

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

Looks to me as a desperate attempt to create buzz around this neologism. WP:NEO. The HuffPost article is written by the same person as the one who wrote European Business Review article. The first citation is a non-notable book (?). The guardian article is on another non-sensical tangent. Anyways, wikipedia is not a dictionary - hako9 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a search throws up 65k GHITs including this and this and this. It claims to have been invented by the editorial team of Dynamique Mag in 2014 as per [40] but I can find references dating back to 1990 here. The term is cited in this book and I even found a description dating from 1986 here. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To coin a new word, I think we need to be more rigorous. Just because a new word is used by multiple non-notable books/websites/authors doesn't mean we give it an encyclopedia or even a dictionary entry. See WP:NAD, WP:NEO, User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words. Check my source analysis below. - hako9 (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis (My analysis. Doesn't represent a consensus) - hako9 (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources listed by Domdeparis
Source URL	Relevant/Reliable/Authoritative?
prnewswire.com	No. It's a PR company. Not authoritative enough to coin a new word.
startupmindset.com	Written by a blogger for an unreliable website. Not authoritative enough to coin a new word.
thetelegram.com	It talks about a TV show called "Extrapreneur"
Book titled Small and Medium-sized Enterprises	Book by an author called Harry Roos. ~~Not notable~~. Not authoritative enough to coin a new word.
Book titled Innovation leadership: Roles and key imperatives	Book by author Dr. Jill Hender. ~~Not notable~~. Not authoritative enough to coin a new word.
Black Enterprise magazine	A magazine by Black Enterprise that trivially uses the word "Extrapreneur" for naming an award.
dynamique-mag.com	Blog/article by dynamique mag. ~~Not notable~~. Not authoritative enough to coin a new word.

As far as I know the fact that an author of a book does not have an article on Wikipedia does not make them non notable just that no one has created an article about them yet or even that books have to be written by notable authors to be considered a reliable source so long as they are not self published as per WP:RSSELF. Dynamique Mag is most definitely not a blog. The PRNewswire article shows that the term is in use and there are even awards for this kind of person. BTW PR Newswire is not a PR company but a very old company that distributes press releases. Why do use the term blogger for the person who wrote the article in Startupmindset as it clearly says she is a staff writer here and why do you call it unreliable? I agree the article needs improving and to cite more sources to show it is a commonly used term and what they say about the term but this is not a reason for deletion but a reason for improvement. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right, that a book/author doesn't need to have an article on en.wiki to be considered notable. But let's understand what we are talking here. We are talking about an encyclopedia entry for a word. To coin a new word, it is implied that it has to be used by multiple mainstream reliable popular media and also have legitimacy given to it by lexicographers. To give weight to my argument, also consider, we don't have standalone articles about words like Retweet or words like Stan (Stan was added to Oxford English dictionary btw). If we have a standalone article, it will likely always be a stub, or it will become a cesspool of original research, like what the websites you listed have done. Last thing, your argument that the word has been used since the 90's lends weight to my argument actually. If the word was used so long ago, why aren't we seeing, even slight usage now, in mainstream media? I am arguing so hard because we can't allow wiki to become a vehicle for inventing and legitimising neologism. This isn't Urban Dictionary. - hako9 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually totally agree with you about wikipedia not being an urban dictionary or just a dictionary. Retweet is maybe not the best parallel because it means nothing more than to...retweet. There is no concept behind it, it is a simple action. There seems to be sufficient evidence that Extrapreneur is a genuine concept with people writing articles and chapters in books about it. Anyway I think there are enough sources out there to show ot is a notable concept and enough to make an useful article. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and see how this pans out. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wachtler

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF, and WP:NAUTHOR. WP:AUTOBIO as has been extensively edited by the subject diff Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and most every sentence wholly fails WP:EDITORIAL User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are the above supporting: Keep or delete?? Xxanthippe.

@Lythronaxargestes, JurassicClassic767, and Dunkleosteus77: to clarify for the closer, are you saying keep or delete?--Kev min § 01:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Per above" clearly implies delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just put "support" since I saw Dunkleosteus put it, but I'll change it to "delete" if needed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 02:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete. I saw two supports so I put down support instead of delete. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (since when do we !vote "support" at AfD...?) Notability as author, researcher, or per WP:GNG not demonstrated. The bits that are usually good hooks for a go at GNG are entirely unsourced (e.g. the tussle with the police). The vainglorious autobiographical tone would require a complete rewrite in any case. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the taxa mention are nomen nudum from what I can tell. No supporting secondary sources at all and no citations to the purported taxa named. (Angiosperms in the Permian? very much pseudo)Kev min § 22:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tendentiousness and lack of supporting sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per everything already said. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything... we have standards, people.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything and per the policy Clone commando sev (talk) 23:15, 30 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. Tone 14:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Kakeeto

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

No indication of notability per WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, with no significant coverage online in WP:RS, just passing mentions. The article was originally a copy-and-paste from Draft:Christina Kakeeto, created by blocked sockpuppeteer User:UGAWOOD2020. Creator's edits have focused almost exclusively on moving that blocked editor's articles out of draft. Captain Calm (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO as stated by the nominator. No results in JSTOR and ProQuest. Google only presented passing mentions and did not establish notability. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Altube

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, no clear indication of notability. Most sources are routine reports, with the only non-report a Real Madrid publication. Eumat114 (Message) 12:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eumat114 (Message) 12:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eumat114 (Message) 12:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Eumat114 (Message) 12:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails both guidelines. MYS 77 ^✉ 14:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:08, 29 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. Tone 12:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Hereford United F.C. season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 18:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 10:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:52, 29 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. Tone 12:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Chester F.C. season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 18:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 10:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:52, 29 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. Tone 14:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tri City Mall

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." WP:BEFORE showed WP:ROUTINE coverage, but not significant coverage that addressed the subject directly and in-depth or that established it meets NBUILD. // Timothy :: talk 12:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 12:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my improvements, multiple reliable sources added with assertations of long-term notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The news citations are all routine news coverage that any mall would receive; it does not demonstrate notability. WP:NBUILD says that ""Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Nothing above touches on historic, social, or architectural importance (and significant coverage means addressing the subject directly and in depth). Which sources show historic, social, economic, or architectural notability. // Timothy :: talk 03:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So by your standards, articles like Swifton Center, Colonial Plaza, Castleton Square, Great Lakes Crossing Outlets, Rolling Acres Mall, Tri-County Mall, Forest Fair Village, Meridian Mall, Lansing Mall, etc. is just "routine coverage" too, huh? By your standards, every single one of those articles that I just named -- all of which, by the way, are Good Articles -- should be deleted because they have "no historic, social, economic, or architectural notability" and are just "routine coverage". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we have the newspapers—as we do in this case—regional centers of this kind tend to draw entire articles about them. Between what TenPoundHammer and I have added to this article, there are quite a few articles specifically talking about Tri-City, Tri-City's relevance in the Valley retail landscape, and so on. And that is something I have found with other centers. Raymie (t • c) 04:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

Guidelines are not just random arbitrary statements, there is a purpose to them. I see this as wheat and chaff. If we have 2000 articles for American malls (don't know the actual number), but only 200 are genuinely noteworthy, the 200 (10%) will be obscured by the other 1800 (90%). Removing non-notable malls, helps the visibility of notable ones. If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls. I believe this is what WP:NBUILD is going for when it says "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance".

Is there some historical importance, such as the malls that were the first of their kind? I'm thinking here of the same way department stores are viewed, every department store is not notable, but the first department stores were pioneers, those have a history that is interesting and notable.
Social, a small/average mall in an urban area not socially notable, it's just one among a vast array of social environments. But a mall in a small town may be the center of the community and a significant part of the social fabric, not duplicated in other places.
Architectural speaks for itself, there are lots of architectural journals and magazines and if they cover a mall because of its design, then I see that as an indication something about the mall is notable and this can be in the article.
Economic, I'd go to the social reason above. A mall in a large urban area is going to make a negligible impact on the economy, even if it makes good money. But a mall in a small town may be a significant part of the local economy, even if it makes a fraction of the money the mall in an urban area does. In the same way as a factory in a city with a huge manufacturing base like Los Angeles or New York wouldn't be notable, but if you move that same factory to a small town, it could be the lifeblood of the economy, if it closed the town would (and sadly have) dry up.

// Timothy :: talk 04:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that not one, but two retail chains chose this exact mall to open their first locations in the entire state, there's clearly at least some degree of economic weight in play here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons that TenPoundHammer and Raymie mentioned above, and as per both of their improvements. I disagree with the nominator that "If all readers see when they look at malls, is open, renovate, close, boring routine items, they will miss the truly interesting and noteworthy malls." Notability is not assessed in relation to other subjects, and openings, renovations, and closures are not necessarily "routine". Furthermore, the references in this page are definitely not mere directory listings or routine coverage. It may have seemed that way prior to the recent edits, but not in the current condition of the article. epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TPH, Raymei & Epicgenius. MB 20:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TPH, Raymei & Epicgenius. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Timothy is making points based on the quality of Wikipedia and the merit of the sources. I cannot seem to load any sources on the page either. IF one can explain to me the reliability of the sources, Im open to change my mind. Existance Leesaaisath 19:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:RS. I also disagree with the nominator; our guidelines are to provide independent, reliable sourcing, not determine which subjects should or shouldn't be written about on Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP Once notable always notable. Also passes WP:GEOFEAT with multiple reliable sources. I have to question the WP:BEFORE. 1968-1998 this was a very notable mall per the RS. AZ Central 1, 2, 3. listed in the book Directory of Major Malls and the book Metropolitan Phoenix: Place Making and Community Building Also non-trivial coverage here. Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kalka–Barmer Express. Tone 14:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rishikesh–Barmer Link Express

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

WP:NOTTRAVEL, The article is about a general train (there are thousands of such). Non-notable. I tried PRODing it but tag was removed. Zoodino (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino ([[User

talk:Zoodino|talk]]) 12:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep or Merge - We can merge this both article because they route are same and they can share their rakes. In references the train have one name only so we can merge these articles.Chikukiri(talk)
Merge - I Think that this train service can be notable if it should be merge with Kalka–Barmer Express because the train route is almost same and also that Ive got some results when searched for Rishikesh–Barmer Link Express and Kalka–Barmer Express in google, but I cannot tell whether those hots can be used as references. Feroze Ahmad 2 (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything notable about this train, only sources on Google News discuss the creation or modification of service. General google search only shows travel related sites. Jumpytoo Talk 21:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Railways are generally considered notable, see WP:RAILOUTCOMES. As to The article is about a general train (there are thousands of such). : Yes, and we do have articles on thousands of such trains -- see Category:Express trains in India. SD0001 (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SD0001, I have already read WP:RAILOUTCOMES, but it mentions about railway lines and stations only. Not about individual trains. Also about Yes, and we do have articles on thousands of such trains, I have initiated a specific discussion about notability of normal individual trains, here and here. Zoodino (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kalka–Barmer Express. Seems to be a link express where the rake is shared, hence the content can be covered there. Merge because the train exists and is a likely search term.--Ab207 (talk) 17:59, 29 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original Outlet Mall

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." WP:BEFORE showed WP:ROUTINE coverage, but not significant coverage that addressed the subject directly and in-depth or that established it meets NBUILD. // Timothy :: talk 11:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability asserted as first outlet mall in the entire state. Found lots of articles on newspapers.com and will work on improving in the next few days. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being the first outlet mall in a state is not notable. WP:NBUILD says that ""Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Routine coverage that any mall would receive is does not establish notability. // Timothy :: talk 03:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first anything is very much a valid assertation of notability. I guess Colonial Plaza, the first mall in Orlando, is suddenly "not notable" and that every single citation in the article is "routine coverage" by your byzantine and contradictory standards. By the way, Colonial Plaza is a Good Article, but I guess in your eyes it's not worth a damn thing and should be deleted too, huh? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "Being the first anything is very much a valid assertation of notability." It depends on the category. Being one of the first department stores in the United States is notable, being one of the first department stores in Orlando is not. They might be notable for other reasons however and if you provide sources showing how they meet WP:NBUILD by their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, then you have an valid argument. But all your doing is saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, using hyperbole, and hurling personal insults. // Timothy :: talk 05:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On grounds of being the state's first outlet mall. In addition, I've done my best to expand the page. Pokemonprime (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply and Question: @Pokemonprime:, the citataions you added are all about routine news items, nothing notable. Is the sole reason you believe this is notable is because it was ~~Arizona's~~ Wisconsin's first outlet mall? or are there other reasons with sources? Thanks, // Timothy :: talk 05:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where the hell did you get Arizona from? Also, how is "first" not a claim to notability? It's not like it was the first mall in Wyoming, which only has three malls to begin with, or first in the Yukon Territory which currently has none. Literally dozens of mall AFDs prior to this one have shown a consensus that this is exactly the kind of coverage sufficient to keep a mall article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You believe it being the first outlet mall in Wisconsin is notable based on personal opinion. I disagree based on WP:NBUILD. If the closer finds being the first outlet mall in Wisconsin is notable and it has encyclopedic value, then it will be kept. FYI, the civil way to write, "Where the hell did you get Arizona from?", is actually, "I think you mistakenly typed Arizona for some reason, the mall is in Wisconsin". // Timothy :: talk 06:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TPH. Note that the original name was "Factory Outlet Center". Searching on that provides sources about the opening and early development. MB 20:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic clearly meets the GNG, even though it has been known under a different name. I am unconvinced that NBUILD will lead to further qualification that this subject is not notable. epicgenius (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources above and in the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable. // Timothy :: talk 02:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: since there is an RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you, // Timothy :: talk 07:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 12:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quicentro Sur Shopping

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." WP:BEFORE showed WP:ROUTINE coverage, but not significant coverage that addressed the subject directly and in-depth or that established it meets NBUILD. // Timothy :: talk 11:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The largest mall in Ecuador. Plenty of other sources available, e.g. [41][42][43] Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, clearly bad-faith nomination by an editor who doesn't give any weigh to claims such as "largest mall in the entire country". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very large mall. The Spanish article is bigger. I tagged for translation. MB 17:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Higashi-Kurume Main Post Office

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

An ordinary post office. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD // Timothy :: talk 11:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every post office is notable enough to have its own article. Down that road lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the source only confirms the post office exist but nothing else to show notability. Some POs are listed historic buildings or have some other distinguishing features but this one has nothing of that kind. ww2censor (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources do not meet {{WP:GNG]] or WP:NBUILD. // Timothy :: talk 18:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Striking !vote by nominator. MB 00:55, 31 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, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

City of Angels Record Label

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG / WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 02:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:28, 28 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. Tone 12:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessee Pass (Oregon)

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

I have tried to improve this article, but other than the GNIS entry I can find essentially nothing on this rather minor passage; everything that looked like a hit turned out to be about the much more famous location in Colorado. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems really obscure. Almost no mentions of the pass anywhere. Glendoremus (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Santiago

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

fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. All this article does is tell us its address. The second paragraph is recycled text appearing in other embassy articles. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely nothing notable about this. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 28 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. Content added during the AFD and subsequent to the source assessment has rescued it. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Methuen Mall

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

An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily found tons of sourcing in the Boston Globe. Notability is not temporary, and many of the sources discuss such factors as the shift in shopping patterns once a competitor opened, and the reuse of the property by later venues. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply and Question @TenPoundHammer:, can you post the sources you found for WP:V. Coverage such as "factors as the shift in shopping patterns once a competitor opened, and the reuse of the property by later venues." that simply mention the mall closing do not show notability. There needs to be coverage that shows the mall has historic, social, economic, or architectural importance per WP:NBUILD or meets WP:GNG. Here is the run down on the current sources:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"General FAQ			This is the best one of all. The mall is in Methuen, Massachusetts. This is a Frequently Asked Questions - General page from New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration. It says nothing about the mall.	✘ No
Methuen Mall loses last anchor store". The Boston Globe.			Brief routine coverage any dying mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD	✘ No
Davis Bushnell (March 17, 1996). "Valley Expo Center is new hope for Methuen Mall". The Boston Globe			Brief routine coverage any dying mall would receive. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD	✘ No
Boston Globe 5/23/2004			Name is mentioned on pp.94 about it being a failed mall. Nothing else about the mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD	✘ No
http://www.brickstoneco.com/properties/loop-methuen-ma	?	?	Dead link to something called "brickstoneco" No indication it was about the mall.	✘ No
https://www.eagletribune.com/news/stop-shop-to-close-in-methuen/article_82a15ea4-f5ca-11e9-a0d1-8fda0eda2f3d.html			Says nothing about the mall. it says Stop & Shop to close. I believe this was built on the location of the dead mall, but it is not about the mall. Its entirely about Stop N Shop closing.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Nothing here shows the mall has historic, social, economic, or architectural importance per WP:NBUILD or meets WP:GNG. // Timothy :: talk 12:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large malls are notable. Here is one article from 1991 [44]. It's likely easy to find more. MB 23:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure you can find lots of routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. These do not establish notability. // Timothy :: talk 02:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not clear to me why every mall that ever existed should have a Wiki article, which is what would happen if standard local coverage of new/closing stores or existence in a town's business directory was sufficient for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on expanding this. The mall has gotten literally decades of coverage in the Boston Globe and elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has been greatly expanded and merged with The Loop (Methuen, Massachusetts), its current name. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expanded article clearly shows notability and quality Pokemonprime (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some additional coverage from the Boston Globe and other papers. Again, I recommend that TimothyBlue use ProQuest as part of his WP:BEFORE check and source tables. There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources (e.g. multiple ~1000-word articles in the Boston Globe). FYI, TenPoundHammer did contact me on my talk page about this one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that some of the coverage I identified were lead articles for various sections of the Boston Globe. E.g. this story (only about mall), lead in real estate; this story (in which mall features prominently), lead in business; this story (only about mall), lead in real estate; etc. There may be others; this is only ones I happened to notice while trawling for online versions of certain news articles. Anyways, this clearly was an important place in the region. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closer: since there is an RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you, // Timothy :: talk 09:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been told that's not a valid reason to keep the AFD open. Let this one run its course. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was the opinion of a single individual, not a consensus. At ANI it was stated, "You and others suggested, reasonably, that some the guidelines for malls should be developed and clarified, and in fact constructive discussion about a potential WP:SNG is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC on shopping malls and notability guidelines.". Let the closer have all of the information and they can decide. There is no hurry to close these only to have them reopened at DR as a result of the RfC. // Timothy :: talk 20:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the consensus is extremely obvious by now to keep this article (especially since the article was vastly expanded during the AFD), there'd be no gain in keeping the discussion open longer. The RFC discussion should be contained within that thread alone, so as not to distract and unnecessarily bog down other processes. The relist happened a week ago, so with the consensus now clear, this should be closed right about now anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The source analysis has not been adequately refuted, and WP:V places the onus on those seeking to retain content to show that it is appropriate. We do not hold AFDs open indefinitely pending the outcome of a potentially open-ended RFC. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood Mall (Houston)

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

An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, existing sources are sufficient for establishing notability. Nominator seems to have a preconception that "defunct" automatically means "non-notable", when oftentimes the reuse of a property into something other than its intended purpose is what makes the entity noteworthy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply and Question @TenPoundHammer:: Which of the sources show notability? I'm seeing a bunch of dead links, two almost identical stories that mention the mall in one sentence about being a filming location, and an article about Sears. Let me know which one you think establishes notability and I will look again.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Houston Business Journal, April 10, 2007			Dead link. No archive Fails WP:V	✘ No
www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/1998/11/02/newscolumn3.html"			Dead link. No archive Fails WP:V	✘ No
"Filming Begins on Television Movie 'Adam'", St. Petersburg Times,			There is no information about the mall. All the source says is "The Westwood Mall will be used to depict the Hollywood mall" Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD	✘ No
"Filming Starts on TV Movie About Abduction-Murder Of Adam Walsh"			All the article says is the Westwood Mall will be used to depict the Hollywood Fla. mall. Provides no evidence of mall meeting WP:NBUILD	✘ No
Houston Chronicle, July 12, 1993			Dead link. No title. No archive found. Fails WP:V	✘ No
Houston Chronicle, September 2, 1993			Dead link. No title. No archive found. Fails WP:V	✘ No
http://www.seritage.com/retail/property/9570-southwest-freeway/3312637/landing	?	?	Dead link. No archive. From a property management website.	✘ No
Peterson, Hayley. "Sears is closing 20 more stores — here's the full list."			Article with a list of Sears stores which are closing. Westwood Mall is in the list but provides no details about the mall.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

None of the above sources establish notability.

re: "that "defunct" automatically means "non-notable", when oftentimes the reuse of a property into something other than its intended purpose is what makes the entity noteworthy" What are you referring to here? // Timothy :: talk 12:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the contents of the article and the sources in it. Contrary to the nominators opinion, Dead Links to not fail verifiability. A DL means the url has changed or the article is no longer available online. It doesn't mean the source must be discounted - sources do not have to be online in the first place. It may take a trip to the library or some other archive to find it. MB 23:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dead links cannot be used to establish notability. The sources added to the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable. // Timothy :: talk 02:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm here from the noticeboard thread, so if it's inappropriate for me to !vote the closer can disregard this. Most of the given sources look like the standard, unexceptional local coverage one would expect for any business, and the articles on the TV movie only briefly mention it. I can't find any guidelines indicating a building's use as a filming site automatically confers notability. JoelleJay (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources available, and the statement that dead links cannot be used to establish notability is completely false. Smartyllama (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: since there is an RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you, // Timothy :: talk 09:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Whilst there are reasonable points made by the nominator in favour of deletion and these have not been explicitly refuted, with no other support for deletion I cannot find that there is a consensus to delete. Deletion discussions are not held open indefinitely pending the outcome of a potentially open-ended RFC. But the page may be renominated should the RFC (or indeed any editor) conclude that it is appropriate to do so. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amigoland Mall

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

An extinct mall. The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Subject does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 03:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:57, 20 August 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 was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2008-07 ✓ keep

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per last AFD. The sources in the article establish notability, and I have easily found further sources on newspapers.com. Notability is not temporary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply and Question @TenPoundHammer:: Above you state "The sources in the article establish notability". Which of the above sources establish notability? All I'm seeing is two dead links and an article about the "International Technology, Education and Commerce campus." Also you said you found more sources, but failed to post information about them for verification. // Timothy :: talk 11:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large shopping malls are notable. It took seconds to find one article with in-depth coverage [45]. MB 23:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources above and in the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements. They do not establish notability. Every mall will have lots of routine coverage because they seek it out as advertising. If this type of coverage makes a mall notable, then every mall will be notable. // Timothy :: talk 02:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closer: since there is an RfC currently under discussion at AfD about what is considered proper sourcing for determining mall notabiity, it may be worth holding these open until that is finished. If a close is made, it would be very helpful for the RfC if you could explain how you evaluated the sources in terms of notability, routine, run of the mill coverage, and how you feel voting and !voting influenced this AfD. Thank you, // Timothy :: talk 09:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: You've been told already at WP:AN that there'd be no benefit to keeping AFDs open longer for this purpose. Let the AFDs run their course individually, and then their outcome might shape the RFC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was the opinion of a single individual, not a consensus. At ANI the consensus in the close was stated, "You and others suggested, reasonably, that some the guidelines for malls should be developed and clarified, and in fact constructive discussion about a potential WP:SNG is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC on shopping malls and notability guidelines.". Let the closer have all of the information and they can decide. There is no hurry to close these only to have them reopened at DR as a result of the RfC. // Timothy :: talk 20:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laine Hitz

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

This has been a long term spam piece and after digging through sources, I can find no evidence that Hitz or his supposed new name "Fuego Bxnds" is notable as a producer or musician. The billboard claim is false as far as I can tell - searching their records gives nothing for Laine Hitz or Hitz, nor for Fuego Bxnds or Nurudin Adow and they don't appear to be included in the actual discography information for any of these. The only one that even appears on their discogs page for Ya Boy was in fact edited by the subject after having been reverted originally (see here) Praxidicae (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 move to → Fuego Bxndz (record producers)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only thing I found is [46], and it's not enough. Sources in article are dead or unreliable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Spain general election debate

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

Basically a content fork of 2011 Spanish general election#Election debates failing to meet WP:EVENTCRIT. The event can be understood and explained within the context of the election, but it had no lasting effect nor any historical significance on its own. The article's scope is also misleading since it refers to one single debate in the 2011 election despite there having been more than one. Plus, the article itself is an orphan and has seemingly been one since at least 2014, and despite it having been created in 2011 it's just a two-line stub with a small table. Any information on that specific debate can be easily accommodated within the main article, so the need for a separate one is null. Impru20^talk 09:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge I see nothing warranting a separate page for this. Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not appear worthy of a standalone article. Number 5 7 20:51, 29 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 Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night. The general consensus is that a series article is premature, but a redirect is suitable and it can be revisited in the future. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodstained (series)

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

Premature creation. There are currently only three video games in this series, and while reliable sources are available, they largely cover the individual games and not the series as a whole. Glades12 (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most detailed RS coverage I can find right now is this: Carter, Chris (2019-09-23). "IGA still has plans to make Bloodstained a series, WayForward helping to smooth out Switch port woes". Destructoid. Enthusiast Gaming. Glades12 (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night. Although individual games are notable, a series article is premature, and not yet supported by RSs as a series. Worth revisiting when/if Bloodstained 2 happens.--Alexandra^IDV 11:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FTR my previous post had nothing to do with the amount of games and only about the existence of sourcing - the last sentence was only meant to say that I can see the situation change in the future, and was not an argument in itself.--Alexandra^IDV 12:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:IGNORINGATD. Whether it should be redirected can be discussed elsewhere, but no argument has been advanced why it should be totally deleted, nor why a redirect until there are enough entries to justify a series article in your eyes would be harmful._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Prepare for a wall of text.) I don't think a redirect would be harmful per se, but I don't think there's a good target for one. The only content the article on Ritual of the Night contains about a prospective franchise is "Igarashi had stated that given the amount of time he has spent in developing the Bloodstained intellectual property, he sees the game as 'a starting ground' for future Bloodstained games." It does contain about half a paragraph on Curse of the Moon and a short sentence on Curse of the Moon 2, but that's it. CotM 1 and 2 are essentially spinoffs, so they would be even worse redirect targets than RotN. Finally, this independent article is not sustainable either due to the lack of truly relevant, independent sourcing. These issues all create a situation where deletion is the only option as far as I can see. Glades12 (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You say there is no series, but with 3 games there is already a series. Kid Icarus (series) has been there since 2006 and only has 3 games. While "it's harmless" is usually a bad argument to make, I legitimately can't see the reason to delete this and make navigation of the series harder for people, especially when it's fairly likely to expand in the future. It seems like needless bureaucracy to me, in the letter but not the spirit of the rules._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bloodstained RotN per Alexandra. The two smaller games are minor offshoots and thus only gives us three games in a series. Until Bloodstained 2 is actually confirmed and we can write more than a stub about it, it is better to talk about the "franchise/series" as a section of the main game's article. A series or franchise article just doesn't make sense at this time. --Masem (t) 15:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night: per Alexandra // Timothy :: talk 14:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough sources that mention this is a series, and that make comments comparing the gameplay and themes throughout the series. You could argue that those mentions are trivial and would involve a lot of cherry-picking, but this is where WP:NLIST should apply. It's clearly a discriminate list of games and there is enough to write about them together, as a related concept. Archrogue (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of She-Ra: Princess of Power and She-Ra and the Princesses of Power characters#Swift Wind. Tone 11:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Wind

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

Let's get this out there first: it is a horse with no speaking role. Sigh. Anyway. The usual: the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD removed by a WP:SPA using edit summary "Laughable! This is an important article!" who is clearly not here to WP:BTE (90% of edits of this account are limited to PRO template removals). Anyway, as I said above, the sources are very poor, plot summaries in niche listings of characters, etc. And yes, the current article cites an encyclopedia: [47], but as you can see following the link to Amazon preview (which may require signing in, but it is free, I mean, who doesn't have an Amazon account...), that character (animal...) doesn't have a dedicared entry, it just merits a passing plot summary mention (no analysis) in the entry for She-Ra. I can't think of anything better to do here than to redirect this to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. It was a cute entry while it lasted here, I guess? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 28 August 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} 09:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect although the better option might be a slight merge to She-Ra since the two characters seem to be so connected. I'll defer to someone with more knowledge of the He-Man universe. Also, there is no need for the snark in the nomination. Leave out the personal opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to ~~List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters~~ List of She-Ra: Princess of Power and She-Ra and the Princesses of Power characters#Swift Wind. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is She-Ra's steed, of course it is notable. Many shows, many toys produced, many discussions on its importance. The nominator just copy-pasted his same nomination everywhere, without any real analysis of the significance of the monumental importance of this article to the Masters of the Universe.IQNQ (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions of WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, etc. are not a very good argument. The WP:SPA above copy-pasted the same argument to all the AfDs in which they used the same dePROD summary. Try again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

Merge & Redirect to List of She-Ra: Princess of Power and She-Ra and the Princesses of Power characters#Swift_Wind - The She-Ra series actually have their own, distinct character list, and Swift Wind is already covered there, so that would be the place for a redirect and any potential merging, not the Masters of the Universe list. Aside from that correction, though, I agree with most of the above. There are plenty of mentions of the character in sources about She-Ra, but very little of that coverage is on the horse himself. The character list already covers him pretty sufficiently, but as that entry is currently unsourced, some of the brief sources included in this current article should be moved over. Rorshacma (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a compromise. Subject does not have third party sources to meet the WP:GNG and deletion is a valid outcome here. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (without wanting to pre-empt the outcome of this discussion) given that there may be a consensus to redirect, we may need to decide which target to redirect the page to. I've changed my vote per Rorshacma's rationale. ~dom Kaos~ (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 redirect to List of She-Ra: Princess of Power and She-Ra and the Princesses of Power characters. Tone 12:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Weaver (character)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD removed by a WP:SPA using edit summary "Laughable! This is an important article!" who is clearly not here to WP:BTE (90% of edits of this account are limited to PRO template removals). Anyway, as I said above, the sources are very poor, plot summaries in niche listings of characters, etc. OUTSIDE this: [48]. Which is in-depth, but still a WP:INTERVIEW. A bit better than the previous two noms from this franchise, but still I can't think of anything better to do here than to redirect this to ~~List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters~~ List of She-Ra: Princess of Power and She-Ra and the Princesses of Power characters, through in this case I'd also carry over this one good reference (which right now is not used well in the article anyway - it just references a PLOT element - so I don't think there's anything to merge...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 28 August 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} 09:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is She-Ra's mentor, second in command of the horde, of course she is notable. Many shows, many toys produced, many discussions on its importance. The nominator just copy-pasted his same nomination everywhere, without any real analysis of the significance of the monumental importance of this article to the Masters of the Universe.IQNQ (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copypasted assertions of WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete - Fails to establish notability to meet the threshold of WP:GNG and fails to meet the standards of WP:WAF. Notability is not inherited. TTN (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- Not enough coverage - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:31, 29 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 He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. Tone 12:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modulok

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD removed by a WP:SPA using edit summary "Laughable! This is an important article!" who is clearly not here to WP:BTE (90% of edits of this account are limited to PRO template removals). Anyway, as I said above, the sources are very poor, plot summaries in niche listings of characters, etc. I can't think of anything better to do here than to redirect this to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 28 August 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} 09:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. Once the extensive OR is discounted, there's very little remaining, and no evidence of significant coverage to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important nemesis in Masters of the universe, and the toy (all 22 pieces of it) is hugely collective and analyzed, of course it is notable. Many shows, many toys produced, many discussions on its importance. The nominator just copy-pasted his same nomination everywhere, without any real analysis of the significance of the monumental importance of this article to the Masters of the Universe.IQNQ (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions of WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, etc. are not a very good argument. The WP:SPA above copy-pasted the same argument to all the AfDs in which they used the same dePROD summary. Try again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

Redirect to List of She-Ra: Princess of Power and She-Ra and the Princesses of Power characters#Modulok, where he is already covered. When you take out the large, mostly unsourced plot summaries, all that's left are a few brief entries in a some "Top Ten" lists, which really isn't enough to support an independent article. Note that even the character list just lists him as an "Other" villain rather than one of the major ones, which kind of shows his lack of importance, even within the franchise itself. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a compromise. Nominator is correct that there isn't sufficient coverage in third party sources to meet the WP:GNG, and we need more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS to support a stand-alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:17, 31 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 She-Ra: Princess of Power and She-Ra and the Princesses of Power characters. Tone 12:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzlor

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD removed by a WP:SPA using edit summary "Laughable! This is an important article!" who is clearly not here to WP:BTE (90% of edits of this account are limited to PRO template removals). Anyway, as I said above, the sources are very poor, plot summaries in niche listings of characters, etc. I can't think of anything better to do here than to redirect this to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 28 August 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} 09:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete - The reception section is populated by some trivial WatchMojo-tier articles. Those are not significant coverage. TTN (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there a better way to handle all of these comics/toys/gaming/fiction/etc. articles? I couldn't care less about this stuff, but this article, at least, appears to include references from independent, reliable sources. I was also alarmed, earlier in the summer, that so many nomination arguments--not by Piotrus, I don't think--were misrepresenting reliable sources by asserting that "Official" in the title of a reference meant that the book was a primary source; it wasn't, and "Official" meant only that the images, etc., had been licensed. The book was, in fact, published by a large publishing house with long-established editorial policies. All of these types of articles inspire a great deal of passion on both "sides," so perhaps a larger discussion in an appropriate venue is in order. I say this respectfully, but if there are responses to this comment, please respond with something beyond pasting in policy shortcuts, or please suggest a different place to discuss what is becoming a problem. (I'm mostly referring to articles where some sources do exist.) Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Caro7200: If you have suggestions how to do things better, I am all ears. This was PRODed, PROD was declined, so here we are. A redirect would be a stealthy deletion so it is better to have one here. Mass nominations are generally seen as bad ideas. And as for the issue of official sources, first, yes, I don't recall making such an argument, and second, this would be better to be raised at WP:RSN or a talk or similar page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important nemesis in Masters of the Universe, of course it is notable. Many shows, many toys produced, many discussions on its importance. The nominator just copy-pasted his same nomination everywhere, without any real analysis of the significance of the monumental importance of this article to the Masters of the Universe.IQNQ (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions of WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, etc. are not a very good argument. The WP:SPA above copy-pasted the same argument to all the AfDs in which they used the same dePROD summary. Try again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

Redirect or delete per TTN - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are sources currently used in the article. How He-Man Mastered the Universe: Toy to Television to the Big Screen (McFarland, 2017) discusses Grizzlor's portrayal in the mini-comics. He-Man and the Masters of the Universe: A Character Guide and World Compendium (Dark Horse, 2017) has more than a page on how the portrayal of Grizzlor has changed over the years, from the mini-comics to the toy line, cartoon, and recent revival. There's a full-length review of a recent Grizzlor figure from MTV News (2010). I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds much better when you reword it - but in the end, as your own edit clearly demonstrates, this is a pure plot summary. Well, outside of a toy review, but a review of a related product may help to estabilish the notability of the figure, not the fictional character per WP:NOTINHERITED. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TTN. We don't have significant coverage to pass the WP:GNG and write any meaningful context. The article is still overwhelmingly WP:PLOT information which is something that Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:21, 31 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 All India Institutes of Medical Sciences. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 09:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Kashmir

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

WP:TOOSOON. The institute is still under construction. Edit: Optionally redirect to All India Institutes of Medical Sciences. Muhandes (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Institutes of Medical Sciences. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All India Institutes of Medical Sciences: Likely searched item Ab207 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Building is under construction, doesn't mean it shouldn't have a Wikipedia Article & if articles of other locations of All India Institutes of Medical Sciences are valid then this article should also be considered as valid. Chinar(Message) 14:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All India Institutes of Medical Sciences Likely search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All India Institutes of Medical Sciences.Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All India Institutes of Medical Sciences as per nom. -- Roller26 (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to All India Institutes of Medical Sciences. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 09:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jammu

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

WP:TOOSOON. The institute is still under construction. Edit: Optionally redirect to All India Institutes of Medical Sciences. Muhandes (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Institutes of Medical Sciences. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All India Institutes of Medical Sciences: Likely searched item and may be notable. Ab207 (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All India Institutes of Medical Sciences. Likely search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All India Institutes of Medical Sciences. Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All India Institutes of Medical Sciences as per nom. -- Roller26 (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Grayskull

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD removed by a WP:SPA using edit summary "Laughable! This is an important article!" who is clearly not here to WP:BTE (90% of edits of this account are limited to PRO template removals). Anyway, I can't think of anything better to do here than to redirect this to Masters of the Universe, but maybe someone can find something out there that's better than the current blog / plot summaries / toy listings. I couldn't :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 28 August 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} 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - There does not appear to be any major commentary on the setting itself. It's definitely worthy of mention somewhere within the main article, but that's all the weight it should receive currently. TTN (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is Castle Grayskull! The central location of Masters of the Universe, of course it is notable. Many shows, many toys produced, many discussions on its importance. The nominator just copy-pasted his same nomination everywhere, without any real analysis of the significance of the monumental importance of this article to the Masters of the Universe.IQNQ (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:SPA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If one actually checks the Google scholar link above, one soon finds sources such as this which explains that Castle Grayskull is " one of the most famous playsets of all time". So, it's not just notable, it's famous. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for linking this. However, the sentence you quote is the complete extent of this source - it is effectively half-a-sentence mention, so WP:TRIVIAL. Now, the claim itself is interesting and the source is reliable, but all that means is that this claim can be mentioned in the Masters of the Universe article, which should have a section about toys, which in turn can have a note that there were CoG playsets which were "very famous" or such. There is no need for us to have an article which will be 99.9% plot summary with such a note. And if this is the best source you've found, well... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:TRIVIAL is an argument to avoid and so worthless. If a scholarly source says that something is famous then obviously we should not be deleting it. There is no arbitrary word-count requirement for our sourcing. What matters is their significance and being famous is quite significant because it demonstrates that the topic has been noticed and that people want to read about it. This page gets about 200 readers every day and that's quite good. We have huge numbers of articles about Polish villages such as Radomno and they are lucky to get one reader per day. Per WP:BURO, WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR, we're not here to engage in pettifogging censorship. We're here to provide information to our readership. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - About this source, "BUILDING CITIES, BUILDING WORLDS: CITIES IN PLAY": It seems Piotrus neglected to read on, because after the quoted "effectively half-a-sentence mention", the whole next paragraph discusses the Castle, and evaluates its significance and symbolism, which can hardly be called trivial. Daranios (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per TTN rationale.- GizzyCatBella🍁 02:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The toy and location got reviewed. https://www.cbr.com/best-he-man-toys/ says "Castle Grayskull is one of the most memorable locations in cartoon history" and gave it coverage at https://www.cbr.com/most-expensive-he-man-toys/ as well. Got a toy review at https://bleedingcool.com/collectibles/motu-castle-grayskull-mega-contrux/ Google news search shows a lot of reviews for the new toy all over the place. Toy reviews back in the 80's surely covered it. Dream Focus 12:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adding to Andrew's links I found https://archive.org/details/kidsstufftoyscha00cros/page/205/mode/2up which says Castle Grayskull was a "major feature of Matell's line" (relevant due to its influence). There are 100s of more sources at Internet Archive, it will require manual work to filter through these. The are 10s of millions of sources at Internet Archive, unavailable anywhere else in the world (online). -- GreenC 13:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither link represents significant coverage on the actual topic. It's a minor footnote on the toy line rather than the actual toy or the fictional setting. You're extrapolating the statement that it's notable to fit into the definition of meeting WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" doesn't mean lots of text, it means the significance of what is being said. If it said "Grayskull is the top selling toy of all time" that is significant coverage even though it's only a few words. It says "major feature of Matell's line" is significant IMO showing how the fictional setting influenced culture. -- GreenC 15:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without any actual discussion on it, the relevant context is about the toy line. It’s not high selling because the set itself is special. It’s high selling because He-Man is special and the set itself was a cornerstone of it. It literally just needs a one sentence line in the main article based on these two sources. There is no content that supports the creation of an article. The need for significant coverage is definitely more about coverage relative to the size of the piece. TTN (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply incorrect that "significance" in GNG is about the size or count of words. It's intentionally vague, it can mean book length treatment, or single sentence, in the later case depending on the significance of what is being said. If a reliable source is directly asserting notability, as in this case, we don't ignore it, it's one way to determine notability. GreenC 17:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the only measure is a subjective interpretation of “significant” (as in how one personally interprets the weight of the statement) we’d never get anywhere. These sources give absolutely nothing from which to build an article on the topic in question. They do not provide anything separating the topic from the parent topic. It’s not a top selling toy because of any special characteristic possessed by the toy. It’s a top selling toy because of the franchise. If there are more sources talking about it on its own merit in detail, that would be your significant coverage. In a world of literal millions of toys, being one of many identified in such a way is not actually significant whatsoever. TTN (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a matter of debate. A statement can carry significance of meaning ie. "The person is the most important in history of mankind" is significant coverage even though it is not significant length. Per GNG we also include the measure of multiple reliable secondary sources, independent of the topic. My source is published by Harvard University Press. This is AfD and we are establishing if the topic is notable. As for length of wp article, some stubs can be a few sentences long, though the available sources here allow for longer length - we are not limited to only the GNG sources when writing the article, for example. You keep attacking my !vote as if Harvard University Press is the only source in the article which is strangely myopic. -- GreenC 22:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the only other source that actually dedicates more than a single word to the topic is the modern day CBR, a listicle factory that pumps out a mind boggling 30-50 lists every single day with little sign of true editorial oversight (compared to known unreliable source WatchMojo that puts out a comparative piddling five videos per day), Bainbridge and Cross are the only sources worth discussing. If a singular person is in fact the most notable in the world, you'd expect the sources discussing said person be above a single descriptor ("major feature", Cross) or a minor paragraph that is ultimately more relevant to the development of the franchise than this singular item (Bainbridge). Neither is a very strong defense of this article's claim to notability. Eternal stubs belong to notable stand-alone topics that are brief in scope, not fictional topics that have suitable parent articles. The entire context of this article is already very well covered in Masters of the Universe at the moment, and you could add both sources without any issue. Even if I cave and say the paragraph in Bainbridge's piece actually constitutes something major on the fictional topic itself, that's the only presented source worth anything in the article or presented in this AfD. TTN (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the measure of WP:N is found in non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources: we have that. The castle is so widely known that I am not even a follower of the series, and yet I knew exactly that this involved Skeletor and He-Man and the Masters of the Universe. Quite a few books discuss the castle as well. Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the sources added by GreenC, I added information to the article from How He-Man Mastered the Universe: Toy to Television to the Big Screen (McFarland, 2017), Mastering the Universe: He-Man and the Rise and Fall of a Billion-Dollar Idea (Clerisy Press, 2005) and The Art of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe (Dark Horse Books, 2015). — Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry but I don't see how your expansion here helps establish the notability. This is just a description of how a toy works and/or plot elements: "Together, the combined sword was used as a key to open the jawbridge to the Castle Grayskull playset" or business-as-usual information about the sales volume "The toy set was the centerpiece of the toy line, and sold more than 3.5 million units". Nothing here seems to warrant the Castle getting its own article, all of this can be mentioned in the article about the Masters of the Universe, which can certainly discuss the popularity of related toys in a paragraph or two. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not business as usual; that was a best-selling toy, and the number of units it sold is relevant, real-world information. In the nomination, you asked someone to find sources that were better than blogs, plot summaries and toy listings. I found several books. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the part about the sources having non-WP:TRIVIAL coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIAL is a MOS guideline and probably not what you intended, the article has no trivia sub-section. You probably mean "significant coverage" of the GNG guideline, where the word trivia does not appear. Trivia is a pejorative term and not terribly useful -- which is why we have the WP:TRIVIAL MOS guideline in the first place, to recommend people from using it. -- GreenC 22:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in several secondary sources, see also note about "BUILDING CITIES, BUILDING WORLDS: CITIES IN PLAY" discussed by Andrew above. Daranios (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non-trivial references in multiple reliable sources. Fish+Karate 18:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There are sources here and this appears to be notable enough. Worst case it can be merged. Archrogue (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Quirks

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

Whilst I can see that the Newcastle Herald wrote an article about them here, and they appeared on Triple J's Unearthed, at the current time I can't see that they have generated much more press than this. Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw it appears more reliable sources have been found that establish the bands notability. Many thanks to Shaidar cuebiyar. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No evidence of any significant independent coverage. Fails WP:NBAND. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After having reviewed all that has been said here, I am inclined to agree. I jumped in too early and posted without proper preview. So, I would say that at this point in time it is a little early for the page to exist. My apologies and full acceptance with the above. LeglessGoat (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeglessGoat (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done :-) Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NBAND. They have toured Australia and appeared at festivals, they have supported other artists, they have been given substantial coverage in several independent, reliable sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I did check, but may have missed these sources. You could help by adding these to the article, it might show my judgement was wrong. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Already added them before voting here. I'm still looking for more.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - nice work! I was remiss to not recheck them article. I withdraw the AFD, though may need to let it finish. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well done. It took awhile to find sources as the band's name hits on many useless sites.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - happy to change my vote, given the recent edits. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:23, 30 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. Player is at a club that is in an FPL, but has not actually played for them yet. Article can be recreated if he does play. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Moustafa

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 13:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plays in the the UAE Pro League which passes WP:FPL. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Ophthalmology. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Virtual Ophthalmic Research Center

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

Does not satisfy organizational notability. Not every 501(c)(3) organization is notable. Google search shows that it exists. We knew that.

Created both in draft space and in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and potentially salt if it's being created in multiple places. There is hardly anything about it, beyond the mere fact that it exists—as the nom notes. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Ophthalmology: I think this is a good redirect target. // Timothy :: talk 14:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Ophthalmology: I think this is a considerable NGO that publishes a notable journal without receiving external fund. I noticed that they do not accept advertisements therefore should support their academic publications.Maryhook97 (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will salt. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Huber

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

Does not satisfy biographical notability. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Google search shows many of the usual vanity hits, many containing the phrase Frequent, Fast Turnaround, Cheap and Easy (FFCE). (Of course. Isn't this an effort to use FFCE as a tag line?) This proves that he exists and uses social media enthusiastically; we knew that. No apparent significant coverage by third parties.

Copied from draft space into article space while waiting for review in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NBIO and WP:PROMO; frankly it would probably qualify as a G11 but since it's already at AfD, we may as well just do this. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I AFC declined this two weeks ago for being portrayed as executive linkedin and asked for WP:THREE sources. Not much improvement since then, and was created in mainspace anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of the author's sockpuppets was OpenCovidScreen (talk · contribs) as in "Jeff is also the Co-Founder & President of OpenCovidScreen (2020-present)" which makes this look like a clear case of UPE for Huber and his business. Cabayi (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that CaliforniaJane7864's blatant gaming of WP:ACPERM prior to creating the first copy of the article, I'm 100% convinced of UPE. Cabayi (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt against future UPE. There was once a copyvio picture of Huber in some prior reincarnation of the article/draft. I find none of our notablity criteria and a whole slew of our NO COI/UPE criteria fulfilled. Fiddle Faddle 19:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 04:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue Chocolate

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

Non-notable organization. Article created by WP:SPA. Normal Op (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references all refer to the lead, vegan, kosher, dairy-free and eco friendly. While the product announcements look like advertising matter, they are in fact, expansion and applications of rescue chocolate. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a promotional article for a company that clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, article is unsourced and a search brought up only primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I can't find anything online to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem like there's quite enough to satisfy CORPDEPTH out there — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:32, 28 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stebin Ben

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

Although this article does have a hand full of sources to it but the links which are there are not enough to satisfy GNG, majorly its either Times Of India, Interview (primary sources) or some random dining blog link Dtt1^Talk 02:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 02:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as he has claims of passing WP:NMUSIC by winning a major singing competition The Stage a televised series and he has also released on major labels Zee Music and Sony India, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe winning major awards should be notable. He won a few awards and has a section (despite being a small section, but a section nontheless) for awards and recognition.Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 15:30, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Akram

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

Not a notable Player per WP:GNG. Also couldn't find much during WP:BEFORE. Seems like a minor, non-notable player.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iitianeditor (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also couldn't anything substantial about this gentleman. wikitigresito (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per wiki WP:CRIN he has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial secondary source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level. So he qualifies as per that. Also ESPN cricnfo is a reliable source so it has at least 1. I suggest expanding the page rather than deleting it as domestic cricketers are notable. CreativeNorth (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, WP:CRIN only establishes a presumption of notability. However, I only see references to indiscriminate stats websites. As there does not seem to be anything close to substantial, in-depth coverage, the subject is very far from meeting GNG and thus the article should be deleted. wikitigresito (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in five professional cricket matches and thus satisfies WP:CRIN. That's also not to say sources in Urdu or other regional languages don't also exist, we write off these cricketers too quickly simply because they're not covered in English sources. StickyWicket (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single such source has ever been found for any of these obscure cricketers. Seems a stretch, and rather hopeful (at best), that one or more could be found, or even exist, in this instance. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:BLP/WP:GNG/WP:BIO as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Also, no list to merge into. The presumption of notability afforded by NCRIC/CRIN is unreliable at best, and discussions are ongoing at WT:NSPORT on how to rewrite them; as such arguments based on them should probably be disregarded at this time. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A listing on ESPN's statistics site proves he exists, not that he's notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. There's pretty clear consensus this isn't ready for stand-alone mainspace. I'll also rename this to Draft:Pensacola Railroad per Mackensen's suggestion. There's nothing to prevent somebody from merging this out of draft space if they want to. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pensacola Railroad Company

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. The given source is primary. [49] only discusses the subject briefly and indicates it barely existed. I'm just not finding anything else about this railroad, although since it was only active 1877 to 1880, it may be in print sources I can't access. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have started the article as a draft. I'm adding info about the subject company and the railroad it operated, so stay tuned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElderHap (talk • contribs) 20:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: to give new creator time to work on it. // Timothy :: talk 01:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – to allow time for it's creator to work on it. Having been nominated for deletion sixteen minutes after its creation, this is a bit of a WP:RUSHed nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A railroad that owned and operated track is notable. I've found a couple sources, most notably the standard history of the Louisville and Nashville. There may not be enough material for a standalone article, in which case Alabama and Florida Railroad (1853–1869) would be the obvious merge target. If this is kept as a standalone it should be moved to Pensacola Railroad which is the convention for articles about railroads. Mackensen (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love in Winterland

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

Coverage appears to be limited to WP:ROUTINE pre-release press, does not meet WP:GNG. Its Rotten Tomatoes entry doesn't list any professional reviews, and I wasn't able to find any searching online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "reception" tag on the article at the moment is optimistic, since there has been literally none. A dime-a-dozen Hallmark movie. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Shakespeare Festival

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

Non notable local festival. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, secondary, substantial coverage Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:37, 20 August 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 (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2009-03 ✗ A3, 2006-11 ✗ CSD G11

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also haven't been able to find significant coverage. Happy to revisit this if DiamondRemley39 is able identify, here or in the article, some of the coverage they've found via Newspapers.com (to which I don't have a subscription), but it would be unusual for that archive to turn up sufficient coverage to establish notability when Google turns up so little. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:09, 31 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 by now a relatively broad community consensus that participation in certain sporting events establishes a presumption of notability per the sport-specific notability guidelines, but that this is not enough to establish actual notability if, as here, no sources beyond participation records can be found at AfD. Sandstein 15:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Hafeez

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

Not a notable Person per WP:GNG. Also couldn't find much during WP:BEFORE. Seems like a minor, non-notable person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iitianeditor (talk • contribs) 19:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per wiki WP:CRIN he has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial secondary source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level. So he qualifies as per that. Also ESPN cricnfo is a reliable source that sources it. I suggest expanding the page rather than deleting it as domestic cricketers are notable. CreativeNorth (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many discussions, including recently at WT:CRIC#WP:CRIN and WT:NSPORTS#Recent English FC cricketers fail WP:GNG / WP:BIO, plus a 2017 RfC demonstrate a consistent clear consensus that cricket notability guidelines are overly inclusive, so arguments at AfD based solely on those criteria should hold little water. Where are the sources to meet the requirements of WP:BLP/GNG/WP:BIO? Without those sources, this article should be merged/redirected to a List of Bahawalpur cricketers, but such a list does not exist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in 15 professional cricket matches and thus satisfies WP:CRIN. That's also not to say sources in Urdu or other regional languages don't also exist, we write off these cricketers too quickly simply because they're not covered in English sources. StickyWicket (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need some substantial sources beyond the directory-like cricket info.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; per my comment above, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and no list to merge into. The presumption of notability afforded by NCRIC/CRIN is unreliable at best, and discussions are ongoing at WT:NSPORT on how to rewrite them; as such arguments based on them should probably be disregarded at this time. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With 15 first-class or List A appearances, this is not a marginal case. Likely to be sources in non-English papers or websites. Shouldn't we be encouraging better coverage of Pakistani cricket? Johnlp (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing assertions of non-English language sources (in various discussions) but not a single such source has been uncovered for any of these obscure cricketers. As such, we must assume that the assertion that such sources exist is demonstrably false. Yes, we should be encouraging improved coverage, but that should be through better quality articles and creating lists for these players, not endless crappy perma-stubs that say nothing more than "X existed and played a couple of matches for Y cricket team (the standard of which is/was highly questionable)" and are sourced exclusively from (largely indiscriminate) statistical databases. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say the standard of these matches "is/was highly questionable". I don't know how you reckon to know that, but their status is not questionable: they are acknowledged first-class or List A matches as agreed under international cricket definitions. You state that the statistical databases are "largely indiscriminate": this is not true, and both Cricketarchive.com and espncricinfo.com are high-quality comprehensive compilations used and relied upon by cricket historians and writers. You are, I assume, fluent in the many languages of Pakistan and therefore able to "assume that the assertion that such [local language] sources exist is demonstrably false", and moreover to claim that your assumption overrides the presumption of notability for high-level sports performers that WP:NSPORTS confers. You are entitled to a viewpoint, and I think we know what it is; but I do not know what credibility we should ascribe to it. Johnlp (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status does not equate to standard, e.g. we know very well that MCC FC matches are very much lower standard than the County Championship – we do not know the standard of the matches played here (we have no details – no match reports, etc. – although we do know that Pakistan FCC was a bit of a mess at this time), therefore it is clearly questionable. "Comprehensive" = indiscriminate; these websites record everything they can, and absolutely cannot be used to establish notability. When someone is able to provide a non-English source for any of these players, I'll reconsider my viewpoint of such claims – until then, such claims are meaningless. Certain aspects of NSPORTS do not enjoy community consensus – NCRIC is very much one of them, as evidenced by many current, recent and earlier discussions. Ultimately, without any real (rather than postulated) sources that offer substantial coverage of the subject, this fails GNG, SPORTBASIC and NBIO by a wide margin. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another cricket sub-stub with notability asserted based on the abusurdly low bar of WP:NCRICKET. A listing in an ESPN stats directory does not establish WP:N, no matter what NCRICKET says. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. No prejudice against redirection. 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. czar 05:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inrush current limiter

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

Fails WP:GNG, a redirect to thermister is possible. Störm (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 28 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 and redirect to Eurocrat. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocracy

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

Non notable board game. WP:BEFORE shows some coverage but nothing that is substantial and reliable. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mikola22 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cannot find anything that makes the game notable. Alex-h (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I found these sources [50], [51], and this mention [52] in Politico. Maybe I'm getting soft, but I'd say this is a weak keep. // Timothy :: talk 00:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, 3.3 rating on BGG? I haven't seen such a low rating in a long time. Anyway, thank you Timothy for finding some sources. My problem with [53] is that it summarized the topic and makes some comments about non-game related politics, but does not tell us anything about the game - it is not a review, nor does it discuss who made it or why. It is very short and I'd argue WP:TRIVIA-level coverage. [54] is clearly the product blurb/description, possibly provided by the producer, and the website is a store. This is not a review and it is likely not reliable or not independent. [55] is just like [1], it does not provide any information about the game itself, the article is really not about the game but about its creator not being allowed to advertise it(?) in the EU official building. It is also very short. Sorry, User:TimothyBlue, I am afraid I don't believe the sources found justify us having an article on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Piotrus I knew I was being soft, I had a moment of weakness. Forgive me as I have come to my senses :) // Timothy :: talk 10:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eurocrat. I generally agree with Piotrus' assessment of the sources, but it seems the term Eurocracy is quite often used in the sense of EU bureaucracy in news and academic sources: 1; 2, 3, such that a redirect seems appropriate. If this article is kept, the subject should be renamed to something like Eurocracy (board game) as the concept seems more prevalent than the game itself. --Dps04 (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changed vote): Article does not meet WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 10:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirecting to Eurocrat makes sense but since the topics are not sufficiently related, I have no objection ot hard delete (delete then redirect). That said, soft delete (just redirect) also wouldn't be a problem, but the odds are very long that this topic would become notable in the future, so... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about either option. Hard delete makes sense as the topics aren't sufficiently related, but I'd thought soft delete works just as fine in case someone wants to create an article like European Union in popular culture, this game could be mentioned in such an article and useful information of the game can be extracted from the redirect's history. But I leave it for others to decide. --Dps04 (talk) 16:54, 30 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) 08:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campbells Bay Primary School

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 05:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails NSCHOOL. I assume as WP:NSCHOOL was not mentioned in the last Afd (2006) that it did not exist at that time. Interested to see if previous keep voters have changed their mind. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this primary school is not notable. Regarding DerbyCountyinNZ's reckoning, schools had not been included yet at the time of the February 2006 AfD. Schwede 66 09:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have held that virtually no primary schools are notable, and there is nothing suggesting this schools is one of the extremely rare exceptions to this general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 28 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. Tone 08:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liberton Christian School

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 05:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primary schools are almost never notable, nothing suggests this is one of the very extremely rare exceptions to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing special about this primary school. As Johnpacklambert points out, they are hardly ever notable, and nothing indicates that this one is an exception. Schwede 66 09:28, 29 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:AFD has been withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 10:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parwinder Singh

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

Footballer who very likely doesn't exist, or if he does is far more minor than the article suggests. The proffered source 404s out, and a Google search returns non-responsive results (string: "parwinder singh" football). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 04:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC) (Request withdrawn at 20:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - player does exist and did play professional football (see Goal.com and Soccerway ELs). Made a number of appearances in the I-League, so meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting, with Indian-language sources. Giant Snowman 11:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say he passes NFooty also, however that can't supersede GNG on a retired player who has no real coverage. I've done a google search and I don't see any significant coverage. Govvy (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly there is no passage of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps editors with knowledge of Indian football (@ArsenalFan700:) or with a knack at funding sources for obscure players (@Jogurney and Nfitz:) can assist? If there is truly nothing out there even in India then I might be inclined to change my !vote, as there is consensus that passing NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed. Giant Snowman 14:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He is an India international so there is probably enough sources to keep. I can definitely say he is notable but I also need to see if Parwinder is his real name. Sources can also have his name as Parminder or Parvinder. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subbing Parminder and Parvinder in the search string above returns absolutely nothing responsive, at least in an English Google search. If there are any sources they'd be in one of the Subcontinental languages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 19:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, disagree. If you type in Parvinder Singh or Parminder Singh in google WITH ONGC or I-League next to it you get sources. Unfortunately for a player over 30 in India you will need to sort of piece together their career. He is an international though so there should be a website somewhere that has that. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot @ArsenalFan700: that Soccerway confirms he has 4 appearances for the Indian national team at the 2006 AFC Challenge Cup, though I note that he is not listed (under 'Parminder' or 'Parwinder') at NFT... Giant Snowman 11:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a couple minor things: worldfootball.net listing: 07/2006 - 06/2009 Sporting Goa. Is that Sporting Clube de Goa? And here are a couple mentions in game recaps: I-League Second Division – Matchday Five Round-Up and I-League Second Division – Match Day Eight Round Up —Scottyoak2 (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - due to I-League appearances Spiderone 10:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if, the article can and will be improved. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough here to confirm that he was a real player. And still played with ONGC after they left the I-League as well, as late as 2015-16 according to this. I searched without success in Marathi, though perhaps Hindi or Punjabi would be more fruitful. Nfitz (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is also sources that state he was with Tata Football Academy as well before Sporting Clube de Goa plus his name appears a lot for transfer pages [56]. Also, looks like he won't have a national-football-teams page because India sent a u20 team to the 2006 AFC Challenge Cup. So, chalk that up as a mistake from soccerway but can be I guess "oversourced" (not sure what the proper term is here). Either way, he is 100% Keep, just needs a revamp. I'll get to it in a bit. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't determine absolutely, but at least one of his 2000s Goan appearances seemed to be in a state league. Given how short the seasons are, I don't know if this was some kind of second team, or an off-season thing ... or what. Either way, it doesn't negate his later I-league appearances. Nfitz (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about footballer who played a few matches in the fully-pro I-League a few years ago. Although NFOOTBALL provides a presumption of notability in such cases, there is nothing indicating the GNG can be met, so the presumption is not valid. All of the online English-language coverage is routine (brief mentions in match reports, transfer announcements and the like). Jogurney (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for deciding admin: I have revised the article completely, adding in additional sources and information than what was originally there when this article was nominated for deletion. I believe there is enough to suffice for WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you have, and so I'll make it easier for them - I withdraw this request as my concerns have been addressed. Thank you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namiremebe Parents Primary School

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS Article is unreferenced // Timothy :: talk 04:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primary schools are almost never notable. Creating stand alone articles on the probably millions of ones that exist or have existed is the path of madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NSCHOOL / WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth

// Timothy :: talk 19:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Striking !vote by nom. MB 01:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 10:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article supported by adequate WP:RS and also per WP:PRESERVE (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 10:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Waterdeep and the North

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted. I-82-I | TALK 04:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry, what kind of rationale is it "the article has no meaning"? It has a big reception section and cites two books and Dragon (magazine) which I think is reliable, and should not be dismissed as a "fan source". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotr. This seems basically fine. Haukur (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at worst Merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Reliable sources cover it. Also copy and paste deletion rational done across a large number of articles at once, by this relatively new editor, is ridiculous. Dream Focus 15:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dragon is published by TSR and cannot be used for notability. It appears that the only independent sources are listings which fail WP:NBOOK's requirement for non-trivial coverage, and the excessive level of detail fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. It is not enough to presume sources exist, they need actually exist, and to be properly cited. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two (minimum requirement to fulfill WP:NBOOK) independent sources is quoted, the other one gives a paragraph worth of info about the book and its content, so they cannot be mere "listings". The content section is about as long as the reception section, that does not seem excessive to me. Daranios (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph in a niche book which doesn't, itself, meet WP:NBOOK is trivial coverage. It is not enough to document bare-bones factual information about a topic, we need to be able to explain to readers why this is encyclopedically significant. The article does a poor job of this, because sources do a poor job of this. Grayfell (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a source meets WP:NBOOK is a requirement (otherwise many academic publications would be excluded no matter their reliability). I think if it's trivial or not is based on the content. What I see in the article is not trivial. Or, to place the general question: There's a lot of information beyond plot summary in the article which is interesting to some users of Wikipedia. What would be the benefit of deletion that would be bigger than loosing that content? Daranios (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreeing with the reasons given by Piotrus and Dream Focus. Daranios (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is absolutely not required that a source needs to be notable in order to be a reliable source. A "niche" book is appropriate for a specialized field of study. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entebbe Early Learning School

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS. The two references in the article do not meet WP:SIGCOV. One is primary, the other goes to a 404 page of a school in Australia // Timothy :: talk 04:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Down this way lies madness. If we had an article on every place that was ever a school at any level this would lead to way too many articles. This is an unsustainable project and needs to be halted before it grows bigger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 10:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angole/Wera Primary School

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL this article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and brief mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV which addresses the subject directly and in depth and is an WP:IS // Timothy :: talk 04:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primary schools are almost never notable and nothing suggests that this school falls under the extremely rare exception to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 10:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:RS are present and also per WP:PRESERVE (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 10:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Realms Atlas

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted. I-82-I | TALK 04:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please improve your copy-paste nomination~(if this is done, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote). "No meaning" is not a valid deletion rationale. The article cites one source (so not a few), and it is a book (not a "fan source"). Frankly, this article may fail GNG but the current rationale is just so bad the nominator needs a friendly warning to learn how to submit AfD articles and how to write proper rationales. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what needs to improve is the use of discernment in creating articles. Not every published guide book related to D&D is notable, and the sourcing here is clearly below notability. The last thing we need is mindless proceduralism backing up these sub-standard articles that add nothing to the encyclopedia overall and bloat it with sub-standard articles that reflect poorly on the encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Pburka or merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Must be hard finding a book source outside the book itself. Only one source seems to mention the book and is used several times without other refernces.Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to the author's page. The book is discussed along with some of the author's other work here, here and here. It's also discussed briefly here. Note that there are dozen's of role playing books of mixed notability and the same vague cookie-cutter rationale at PROD right now. pburka (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources User:Pburka found which need to be added to the article. Additionally, the article does not go into heavy game mechanic details (so it's not a WP:GAMEGUIDE situation). I've said this in another AfD & on the nominator's talk page, but in the future, please take the time to review an article's sources & then (if you think it has failed notability, etc) customize your PROD/AfD nomination for the article at hand. For example, in this situation your nomination should have highlighted that it cites exactly 1 source (not "a few fan sources"). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how any of the points of WP:GAMEGUIDE applies here. And in what definition does this article have "no meaning"? One source is present in the article, several more have been found (thanks!), so this is worth preserving and expanding. Daranios (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Given the experience in other AfDs, I would like to emphasize that Women in American Cartography: An Invisible Social History does not only mention the Atlas on p. 48, but then, continuing into the next page, gives more details about the author's maps which applies to The Forgotten Realms Atlas. Give the discussion about Gender bias on Wikipedia we should have very good reasons before deleting an article which has a, how ever minor, relation to women's social history. Daranios (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role-Playing Games and Women in American Cartography: An Invisible Social History are good sources that demonstrate notability. The Cartography book only talks about Fonstad for three paragraphs, and it's about the atlases as a whole as opposed to specifically about the Forgotten Realms version, but there's material there that could be used to expand the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudharshan M. Kumar

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

Not notable yet. Only composed music for one film. Guest composing does not count. I couldn't find any sources for this guy. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not justified by the available resources. Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:21, 29 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:RS are present and also per WP:PRESERVE (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 10:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faiths and Pantheons

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has no meaning, and cites only a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted. I-82-I | TALK 04:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please improve your copy-paste nomination (if this is done, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote). "No meaning" is not a valid deletion rationale. The article has a reception section which cites three sources and the nominator should explain why they are "fan sources" and why they are bad. Frankly, this article may fail GNG but the current rationale is just so bad the nominator needs a friendly warning to learn how to submit AfD articles and how to write proper rationales. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to justify keeping the article and a search found no other sources likely to add to notability. Wikipedia for too long has allowed unregulated article creation for us to be in any position to assume that the existence of an article in any way suggests the subject might be notable. We need to end all proceduralism that ends up presegving sub-standard articles for non-content reasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per below comments, or failing that merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Reliable sources review it, so it passes the general notability guidelines. Copy and pasting a meaninglessly invalid reason in so many AFDs you started at once is ridiculous. I think you just went through proding dozens of articles without actually looking at them, then those that were deprodded you sent to AFD right away with the same bad deletion rational. Dream Focus 16:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - This article was kept in an AFD less than a year ago, and the nomination has zero rationale or policy based argument as to why that result should be overturned or re-examined. The citing of WP:GAMEGUIDE makes no sense in this case, as the article is on a real-world product, not on how to play the game itself. Claiming the article has "no meaning" is rather nonsensical. Rorshacma (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contemporary sources reviewed the book & the article does not go into heavy game mechanic details (so it's not a WP:GAMEGUIDE situation). I want to second Dream Focus's comment above that you used the same copy-paste rationale on dozens of PROD nominations before using it in AfD nominations. In the future, please take the time to review an article's sources & then (if you think it has failed notability, etc) customize your PROD/AfD nomination for the article at hand. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how any of the points of WP:GAMEGUIDE applies here. And in what definition does this article have "no meaning"? There are two secondary sources, that's the minimum requirement to fulfill WP:NBOOK, right? Daranios (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I am skeptical that Fictional Reality is a reliable source. Sources do not have to be online, but they still have to be WP:V, and this one has apparently been offline for at least a decade, meaning it was offline when it was added as a reference. The WotC source is not independent. That leaves a single source, which isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I can add something here besides disagreeing: Thankfully Fictional Reality was archived, even though it is somewhat hard to find. Issue 09 can be looked at and veryfied by anyone here as a pdf. Daranios (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that really helps. While this is an improvement, after looking at the review and the issue, I think this is a very flimsy source. This magazine was clearly a passion project for those involved, but the flip-side of this is that parts of it are very amateurish. Some of the reviews have named authors, but most don't, including the review of this book. Lacking information on this magazine's reputation, editorial policy, etc., I don't think this source is sufficient to establish notability. Grayfell (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with other folks that mass cut-and-paste nominations are bad, especially since this passed through AfD a year ago. The Fictional Reality source is definitely good; it's a full page review in an independent magazine. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks. czar 05:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarves Deep

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

This article has no meaning, and cites one fan souce. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted. I-82-I | TALK 04:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this nomination is weak (what does it mean "no meaning") the article has no references, just one external link, and as written, fails GNG/NBOOK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks. As this one has no sources, there is nothing to actually merge. Rorshacma (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks. I have added a couple of sources to confirm accuracy of material. Guinness323 (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks. I don't see how any of the points of WP:GAMEGUIDE applies here. And in what definition does this article have "no meaning"? There is some sourced content here now, and the target article would benefit from a sentence of description of what this module is about, so I am convinced there is something to merge rather than redirect only. Daranios (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks. Sandstein 08:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark

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

This article has no meaning, and cites a few fan sources. It easily fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, and should be deleted. I-82-I | TALK 03:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Abstain. Problematic nomination aside ("no meaning"?) the article has only one reliable reference (the Pyramid review; it doesn't matter if something is a "fan source", whatever this term may mean). The other linked source, however, [57], seems like the products official description, not a review, and as such, this seems to fail GNG/NBOOK. Do ping me if more sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the pings. Since a plausible second review was found, I am now abstaining (since nobody can verify the second review is in-depth). Do ping me again if we can confirm that the second review is non-trivial (i.e. more than a paragraph long). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks per below comments, in addition to the Pyramid review, since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE The creator of the article thinks that's best, then so be it. And honestly now, an editor who has only been around for a few months copying and pasting delete prod tags on dozens of articles one after the other, then when any are rejected instantly sending them to the AFD with the same copy and paste rational, is rather ridiculous. Perhaps we could discuss these things together as a group somewhere instead of having to go through dozens of different discussions about them. Dream Focus 15:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks - The single review is not enough to pass WP:NBOOK, but there is no reason for it not to Redirect to the main article, with that one source moved over. Rorshacma (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless sources can be tracked down. Per RPGGeek, there are two reviews in German. One I think is independent ("Das Unterreich" in Envoyer (Issue 47 - Sep 2000)) and one I think depends on how editors view the German edition of Dragon ("Rollenspiele" in Dragon (German Issue 10 - Sep/Oct 2000)). I'm pinging User:Piotrus & User talk:BOZ in case they know any editors who speak German & can track these reviews down. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sariel Xilo, I would say Daranios may be the native German speaker you need. :) BOZ (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I had that magazine, I would be happy to add to the article. Unfortunately, I have very few Envoyer issues. Daranios (talk)

Keep. I don't see how any of the points of WP:GAMEGUIDE applies here. And in what definition does this article have "no meaning"? The German rpg index supports rpggeek that Envoyer #47 has a review of the German version. So there seem to be two reviews, which would be the minimum requirement to fulfill WP:NBOOK, right? I don't have access to that issue of the magazine myself, so a merge and redirect would also be fine for me until someone can add more. Daranios (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. Find better sources. Dragon is not presumed to be independent, regardless of language. The obscurity of these sources suggest that they do not meet WP:RS for notability. Grayfell (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book is treated in at least two independent sources, Pyramid and Envoyer. Granted, they are not the New York Times, but according to WP:GNG, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". So are there any well-founded suspicions why either should not be reliable? Otherwise I think they should count. The only problem I see is that so far noone here could ascertain the quantity of the Envoyer article. Daranios (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not merely the quantity of the source that matters. Since all sources are judged in context, we cannot assume these sources are appropriate, reliable, or even usable. Even if this book was mentioned in the NYT, we would still need to evaluate that coverage accordingly. Avoid WP:CITEBOMBing. If this work is noteworthy, there will be some indication why it is noteworthy beyond its mere existence. Grayfell (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As we were just discussing if there are enough sources, WP:CITEBOMBing hardly seems the problem here. I also see none of the four examples in WP:CITEBOMB apply. Do you? As for context, having magazines about role-playing games judge an rpg supplement seems appropriate to me. The article does already have a significant reception section which tells you why anyone should be interested in this supplement, without even taking into account the Envoyer. So the common complaint of being mostly plot-summary does not apply, and it seems these source are indeed useable. And I can tell you, the Envoyer was a solid if small rpg magazine. Pyramid was an award-winning one. So I ask you again, if you know of any facts that should let us doubt their reliability. Otherwise I stand with my keep opinion. Daranios (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably hold-off on responding to every comment in an AFD you disagree with. You've already made your position clear, and the purpose of these discussions is to invite outside perspectives.

Since we have not actually evaluated the Envoyer source, we cannot know if it's usable. Until it has been properly evaluated, it's functionally useless for Wikipedia. Adding it to the article would be adding a citation, not a source. Adding a citation to preserve an article is cite-bombing in the general sense.

The "Reception" section is based on the Pyramid source which is over-used in the article already, and a product listing written by Appelcline on a site which doesn't appear to meet basic WP:RS. While Appelcline may be a topic expert (or might not be) this is not a valid source for notability. Grayfell (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The English original version of Drizzt Do'Urden's Guide to the Underdark has been reviewed in issue #39 of the German rpg magazine Envoyer (while, as has already been said, the German translation is reviewed in #47 of the same magazine). This adds no new source for the sake of notability, but should allay fears that too little is said to count! Daranios (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Axesynth

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

WP:GNG failure. Source to junk sites like deviantart, YouTube and various self published websites and I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Graywalls (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It's not clear whether the instrument ever went into commercial production (neither electrokraft.com nor axetronic.com are extant) but it doesn't look like this one would have gained much interest from the Sharks. It's a shame: I'd love to own one. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although I would like to own one as well... Caro7200 (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Less Unless (talk) 15:05, 30 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. czar 05:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunita Verma

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

~~NO headlines or news sources about her. Prasanth202 (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Stuck sock vote SD0001 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Prasanth202 (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors are not default notable, and nothing suggest Verma is an exception to this general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage; Sources only mention about their removal. Ab207 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mayors are not eligible. Elected politicians are eligible.Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources don't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. BEFORE showed nothing notable except removal. // Timothy :: talk 18:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors, even in large cities, are not automatically entitled to an instant notability freebie just because they're technically verifiable as existing — the way to make a mayor notable enough for inclusion is to write a substantive article that demonstrates her political importance, not just to write a 22-word stub which fails to go any further than stating that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clay dog

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

Does not meet notability criteria - little used term for calcareous concretions. See Talk:Clay dog for details Incorrectly identified as a "clay formation" that has been "sculpted by river currents" Paul H. (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as suggested on article talk page. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to have been redirected to a parent article by nominator Jumpytoo Talk 20:35, 29 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 merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks. czar 05:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volo's Guide to the Dalelands

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

This is a WP:GNG fail. There are no independent sources in this article, and only one source is cited by it at all (which happens to be a game review). Also, WP:NOTAFANWEBSITE fails this page too, as it is if no interest to anyone but devoted fans, and lacks any notability. I-82-I | TALK 02:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. I-82-I | TALK 02:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A game review would be a valid source, but there is no indication the linked review reviews this particular book and not the bigger system. It is also not linked. Unless better sources are found, well, it falls GNG. PS. I found the text of the review mentioned here: [58]. It is three paragraphs, but I am not seeing why that source would be reliable. Was it a fanzine? This doesn't answer it. Even if we accept this publication as reliable, GNG requires multiple sources, so one more review is necessary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am still in shock that we have never introduced rules making all new articles go through the Articles for Creation process. Not every published work deserves its own article. That is the only standard that would justify keeping this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks - The single review covering it is not sufficient per WP:NBOOK to sustain an independent article. However, there is really no reason for it not to at least Redirect to the main article. The single source being used should probably be moved over there as well. Rorshacma (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms modules and sourcebooks#Sourcebooks per Rorshacma. There's a source, and while I'm not familiar with it, it doesn't look like total trash. Worth a sentence or two at the target, and the source can be moved over for verification. Looks like a GNG fail, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As has been said, contrary to the nomination there is an independent source. Arcane is a rpg-specific magazine, and the cited article is, well, a review - what you would expect for the reception section of a book. I would be fine with simply keeping the article, but as so far only one source has been presented, merge seems reasonable. No benefit in deleting perfectly good, valid, and independent information. Daranios (talk) 20:17, 28 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cuthy Mede

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

Non-notable artist. Clear fail of WP:GNG. No references to attest to notability or significance. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:GNG. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.

~ Amkgp 💬 02:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malawi-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He been the subject of an article in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Modernism ([59]) which describes him as the "most well known Malawian artist". (This article is, by the way, the very first Google search result for his name.) If he's prominent enough to be the subject of a biographical article in another encyclopedia, he passes WP:NARTIST/WP:BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AleatoryPonderings. I was about to mention the same Routledge encyclopedia entry. Along with the several museum catalogues, the travel guide entries and a few other Google books items, this just makes it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on findings by AleatoryPonderings and ThatMontrealIP. Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AleatoryPonderings. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google Books search shows plenty of coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW KEEP. (non-admin closure) Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 07:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinakrushna Das

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable poet with no significant recognition or demonstrated notability in his line of work. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This poet has been the subject of an entire book published by Sahitya Akademi ([60]), a reference to which is currently included in the article itself and was there when this was nominated. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of several recent nominations (e.g. Buket Uzuner) by this new editor which show no evidence of even cursory attempts to find sources. Please slow down on the nominations and spend more time on WP:BEFORE. pburka (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the search phrase ""Dinakrushna Das" encyclopedia OR dictionary OR survey OR biographical OR history" turned up lots of good looking entries in Google books. he is obviously a thing. I would also suggest to the nominator that they slow down on their nominations, as they have only had an account for ten days and the AfD process is complex.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability. He has enough works to justify notability.Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:24, 29 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 deleted as G4. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Dutta

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Youtube personality with no demonstrated notability other than racking up 1 million followers. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was speedily deleted in 2019 and recreated a couple of days back by a new user and moved into mainspace by another user. The creator of the original article was also banned for sockpuppetry. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable youtuber. fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like the best sourcing out there is TOI which mostly quotes the subject hence not intellectually independent, and NDTV Bengali which looks better but difficult to evaluate without being able to read the non-translated original.

I don't think either GNG or NBIO is met, but open to being convinced otherwise if more Bengali language coverage is found. SD0001 (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Letter for letter and word for word the same version twice deleted through AFD. This one is therefore redundant as CSD G4 still applies in spades. I've salted this time too, so hopefully that's the end of it. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:18, 30 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. Tone 08:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bando Jonez

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

Non-notable musician. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUS. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it states that he did chart as part of a colaboration on Billboard R&B charts, and that normally is a qualifier. But a search on their site shows nothing for him under his current or former name, but then again Billboard's search engine has been spotty in the past. The references are rather press-releasish, so I don't think any of them add up to much. But maybe there is something here if someone deems its worthwhile to do the leg work to save it. As of now it looks to be delete based on what's provided. BTW, the impressive claim here that he was "signed by Epic Records" is contradicted by his own press release which cites the small Zone 4 label, which is a subsidiary imprint under Epic, but it's not the same as being an Epic Recording artist. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of hits in reliable news sources like Vibe, XXL, Complex and TIME. His song "Sex You" was featured in Magic Mike and spent 15 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100.[61] pburka (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) as shown in the Billboard reference linked to in the preceding comment and also mentioned here. Also he has coverage in reliable sources such as Complex, XXL and Time so also passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 29 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. Tone 08:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Hawkeye

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

Unnecessary article split that goes into too much detail about in-universe details and fails to justify its existence through reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a basic summary to Hawkeye (Clint Barton). BOZ (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hawkeye. This content forking has become excessive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Hawkeye. Most of these versions are not notable, only appearing, sometimes just briefly, in a single issue or storyline. The few that do have notability can be easily covered as part of Hawkeye's main article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After participating in a number of similar AFDs, I'm leaning more towards delete now. While I still think a couple sentence summary could be added to the main Hawkeye article, none of the content currently in the article is really appropriate to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. Article itself is mostly (all) WP:OR based on primary sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as a compromise. Article does not meet the WP:GNG and is overwhelmingly cited to primary sources, where third party sources are needed to write some meaningful context and verify its WP:NOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:22, 31 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 deleted as hoax. (Well, it's going to be deleted via archive, anyway.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Dressing

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

Non-notable book per WP:BK. The author doesn't have an article either. SL93 (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all signs point to this being a hoax article. Check out the article as first created; it suggests as much. Nothing on the creators or the title on GoodReads or on WorldCat. The creator's other articles should be investigated for more hoaxing. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to delete this as a hoax. Looking at the original version of the article, the creator wrote

Teddy Dressing has mysteriously disappeared from shelves across the globe. The record has been wiped clean. This remains a mystery to many parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and children. All wonder if the book was merely a figment of their imaginations, if the book could possibly have a different title.

This means that this was either a hoax or the title was completely wrong. However there's more proof to show that it's a hoax. They came back later and changed the writing to this:

Teddy Dressing has mysteriously disappeared from shelves across the globe. The record has been wiped clean, save for a few copies in remote libraries. This remains a mystery to many parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and children. All wonder if the book was merely a figment of their imaginations since many do not know it still exists, or if the book could possibly have had a different title.

They also added an image, File:Teddydressing.jpg. It was deleted due to licensing issues, but thanks to having my admin voodoo I was able to examine the image... which showed that the "proof" of existence was just a printed piece of paper taped to another book. You can even see the paper corner where they tried to hide that it was fake by folding it under the book spine, but failed to notice that you could still tell that it was a single piece of paper. The same goes for the other side of the paper. It also has that obvious look of an image printed off a home printer.

So essentially, it's fake. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:16, 28 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kōnai Station

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

No source. WP is not a catalog or a random assortment of facts. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of references at the corresponding Japanese article]. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is now referenced and can be expanded based on the Japanese article. Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While I personally don't really agree with making articles on tram stops that are just a bit of sidewalk, the Japanese article seems to have enough referenced history to create an article here. No evidence of WP:BEFORE due diligence before nomination. Jumpytoo Talk 21:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We always consider railway stations to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp and Eastmain - no evidence of WP:Before being done here Nightfury 10:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar Dayal

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

He has directed only one film. WP:Too early. Redirect to Saguni is an option. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he has directed 3 films. [62] TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He has directed only one film. Another has been shelved. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct! The subject fails to qualify general notability criteria, particularly NACTOR. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:TOOSOON. Ab207 (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, doesn't meet notability at the moment, possibly WP:TOOSOON. EverybodyEdits (talk) 16:32, 28 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] "Canada's Walk of Fame". Canada's Walk of Fame. Retrieved 13 August 2020.

[2] Ruta, Mike (1 November 2018). "Ajax singer LU connects with 'Don't Count Me Out'". DurhamRegion.com. Retrieved 13 August 2020.

[3] Perkins, Tara (2014-07-25). "Top court move reignites Toronto Real Estate Board battle". The Globe and Mail. ISSN 0319-0714.

[4] Johnson, Karen (2013-05-14). "Competition Bureau Appeals Ruling in Toronto Real-Estate Board Case". The Wall Street Journal.

[5] "Toronto Real Estate Board cracks down on realtors sharing sales data". The Globe and Mail. 2018-08-29. ISSN 0319-0714.

[6] Melnitzer, Julius (2014-02-05). "Federal court says Toronto Real Estate Board subject to Competition Act". National Post. ISSN 1486-8008.

[7] "Toronto Real Estate Board's survival at stake: battle over listing service". National Post. 2000-09-13. ISSN 1486-8008.

[8] The Canadian Press (September 26, 2017). "Toronto Real Estate Board raises concerns about possible vacancy tax". CBC News.

[9] Noakes, Susan (September 18, 2018). "TREB says it has released disputed real estate data". CBC News.

[10] "Toronto Real Estate Board wins extension days before deadline to publish home sales data online". CBC News. July 29, 2016.

[11] "Toronto housing market roars back to life in July — with prices shooting up by 17%". thestar.com. 6 August 2020.

[12] Kalinowski, Tess (18 August 2020). "TRREB cut off its listings data to property search site Bungol two weeks ago. The website still doesn't know why". thestar.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]