Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 19#ART Factory

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 August	20 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. Tone 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the Beast (1992 film)

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

No independent reliable sources found during search to establish notability for this direct to video film. Tagged for notability for 7 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched Google, JSTOR and ProQuest for sources but found passing references of allegations of copying Disney. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFO. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as above, I found references of copying disney. In addition, I found a handful of blogs (not reliable per WP:UGC) discussing the film. The only independent, reliable source I found just listed the publication date, the studio, the publisher, and the director. That is not significant coverage. The film fails the WP:GNG and I don't see how it passes WP:NFO. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 22:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by an Admin per WP: G7. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signs of the Swarm

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

A7: Non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and (mostly) fails WP:BAND. I know this group very well, and they're just a trendy deathcore band. I know their music videos have a few million views on YouTube (but that's mostly attributed to the over-hyped marketing machine of a vocalist that is no longer in the band). There's only ONE source that is used on the whole page, Googling their name indicates no such notability that passes WP:GNG. They've also never charted and definitely are not one of the more noteworthy acts of the deathcore genre. Second Skin (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know this band as well, I find them freaking awful and annoying (but that's because I cannot stand deathcore (or metalcore for that matter). But that's not the point here. (Punknews.org Album Review) This is the only good source imo (PunkNews is a reliable source). Even though I have found other sites that reviewed this album, they are blogs. The Metal.de page is blank, it only lists their tour dates which does not establish any notability either. But no album review or anything. The rest of the results are the usual suspects like Metal Archives, Discogs, Rate Your Music, Spotify, Youtube and all this crap. There are also several news about their new vocalist (including the one in the article) but I don't count them as reliable sources because they have PR and gossipy feel. So in retrospect, this band has gotten some coverage, but that's because the marketing machine worked. There is nothing special about this band, they are just like every other deathcore band. Some of them are notable, some of them aren't, like this one. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Their metal archives page was made by me lmao Second Skin (talk) 00:48, 21 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 23:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Hoffman (artist)

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

This article is written like a promotional piece and is sourced almost entirely to WP:PRIMARY sources written by the subject herself. A cursory Google search didn't turn up any substantial secondary coverage, so I'm not sure the subject meets WP:GNG, either. Additionally, the article text is entirely copy-pasted from here—or vice versa. I'm hesitant to say it's a blatant copyvio since this other source may have copied from us. I also notice that the article's creator, User:Artintegrated, appears to be a promotional entity based on the user page, so there may also be COI issues at play. Armadillo pteryx 23:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find much for independent sourcing. The Brooklyn Museum 'collection' is actually their library collection, and not the art collection. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads promotional to me. I have not found significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG.Less Unless (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 11:13, 24 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 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khowai Government Girls' Class XII School

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non notable school. Unable to find any significant coverage other than some listing site. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does someone know if this school is related to Khowai Government Higher Secondary School? Ktin (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - schools are not inherently notable and this one clearly fails GNG Spiderone 13:57, 26 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 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda Marga High School (English Medium), Teliamura

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non notable school. Unable to find any significant coverage other than some listing site. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 19 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 17:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:09, 21 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 22:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonatala Govt. Class XII School

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non notable school. Unable to find any significant coverage other than some listing site. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Has some history going for it by way of incorporation in 1946. However, nothing else shows up about this school. Unfortunately, this might have to go. Ktin (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any sources, which isn't surprising - from my experience high schools in India are seldom notable. SD0001 (talk) 13:35, 21 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 17:33, 21 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 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Fantasy and Science Fiction Wargamers

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

Non notable society. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, substantial, secondary sourcing Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly anything about it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 26 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. Creative collaborations are a tricky subject with respect to WP:NORG, which could theoretically be interpreted as covering any kind of ensemble. However, there is substantial consensus in this discussion that this article, as improved over the course of the discussion, now meets that threshold as well. BD2412 T 00:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United Graffiti Artists

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

It is a collective/group, thus subject to WP:NORG. This article has been A7'd twice, and recreated again this year. There's still no indication that it meets the stringent expectations that this collective be retained. Even if the members are notable, the organization does not inherit notability and the sources presented fails WP:SIRS. Going out guide in NYT doesn't constitute significant, nor does a casual mention in the local Downtown Los Angeles paper like the following carry a significant weight. "Gastman brought together a wide array of artists for the current show. That includes graffiti pioneers Taki 183 and SJK 171, who were members of the landmark group the United Graffiti Artists, which was active decades ago." Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I believe interpreting NCORP to apply to an artist collective to supersede GNG is an incorrect interpretation. And anyways, the peer reviewed sources I just added would satisfy NCORP -- in particular the chapter on the group in the peer reviewed MIT book. But also the other peer reviewed texts that repeatedly state that UGA was the first graffiti group and the first to promote grafitti as a high art (e.g. for gallery/market display) Theredproject (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. @Theredproject:, Did you read what NORG says? "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together" Graywalls (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Graywalls, and if you read on, it says “This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people).” A collaborative art group are co-authors. Theredproject (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - (question was raised at WT:N about this). There's no indication this group are "co-authors" or "co-artists". They are a group working towards common activism to promote graffiti, so they clearly fall as an organization and NORG applies. --Masem (t) 17:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Also found a New Yorker article, which mentions their contributions to a Twyla Tharp production. Caro7200 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment did you feel it was significant and in-depth? It was more than a brief mention in a passing, but less than significant and in-depth as required by WP:SIRS. Graywalls (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did. Caro7200 (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please have another look. An editor incorrectly editorialized and said the US Forest Services credited them. Have you seen the sources? They don't exactly satisfy significant, independent, reliable and secondary coverage in multiple sources. Satisfying all these is a requirement for article inclusion. There just isn't enough significant coverage focusing on UGA. I'll include an example of co-incidental coverage I learned while participating in a different AfD. Co-incidental coverage that happens due to something other than the subject of the article should not really be counted with any significance, for example, the appearance of Kitten Rescue here https://sports.yahoo.com/colton-haynes-adopts-cat-names-160954900.html would be considered completely trivial and the coverage occurred only because of Colton Haynes. Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also convinced by [1] (at least 2 pages of in-depth coverage) and [2] (detailed paragraph). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know the topic well enough to !vote on notability, but NORG definitely applies. To establish notability we need sources that discuss (in reasonable depth) this collective/group AS A WHOLE, and not just the individuals who made up the collective/group. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 21 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 22:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Francis Alexander

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

One event. already mentioned in the article Air raid on Bari DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The continuing coverage of Alexander's work that proceeded for months after the bombing have been the subjects of major articles in reliable and verifiable sources, as already documented in the article. In no way, shape or form is he notable for the Air raid on Bari; he wasn't even there at the time. The book The Great Secret: The Classified World War II Disaster that Launched the War on Cancer, by Jennet Conant, which is the basis of the lengthy article about him in Smithsonian, is described as "The gripping story of a chemical weapons catastrophe, the cover-up and how one American Army doctor’s discovery led to the development of the first drug to combat cancer, known today as chemotherapy." That doctor, the subject of the book, is Stewart Francis Alexander. Alansohn (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if so, why does the article talk about him ony in the context of treating thesurvoivors of that raid? I think you need to write a different article than the present one. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, per WP:BLP1E, Alexander merits a separate standalone article because the single event he was associated with, the Air raid on Bari, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented in reliable and verifiable sources, including a book that focuses on his pivotal and enduring role. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appear to be numerous sources online including books, so easily passing WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep--Vinayaraj (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the person satisfies the notability criterion for academics. History of cancer chemotherapy talks about his theory that mustard gas could be used to suppress cancer cell division, and how that played a role in the further development of chemotherapy. As such, it satisfies The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline. -- Raziman T V (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage in RS. Satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (academics): The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable source Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I AM ALS

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

Organization itself has insufficient coverage & hasn’t been discussed with in-depth. A before search only links me to primary sources, press releases & self published sources. The founder appears to be somewhat notable but per WP:NOTINHERITED this doesn’t count for much. Celestina007 21:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 21:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 21:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 21:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 21:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 11:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AirDee

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is largely limited to Q&A interviews and press releases. The two best sources currently available for building a case for notability are [3] and [4], which don't add up to GNG. I wasn't able to find additional coverage online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one is a close call because he has done a lot of things that have earned brief media mentions, but I agree with the nominator on how it doesn't quite add up to notability. He has gotten some reliable but brief mentions in stories on songs that he produced for others (such as the Locnville et al. track), and he has a lot of appearances in lists of his scene's producers. Unfortunately those sources are almost always indirect or trivial, and he remains a few steps away from notability in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is not such to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Article covers a non-performing personnel subject and can be better improved to meet GNG criteria. Producers have limited coverage by default due to their background nature. The subject however has a presence and as a producer warrants some notability especially in the South African Music scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pen Bull (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about notability is that at the end of the day, we need independent coverage the write an article. It may be unfair that producers don't get enough credit for their work, but there really isn't much that we can do in the absence of coverage. If you can find significant independent coverage in secondary sources then you can make a case for notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: GNG fail, as well as fails WP:CREATIVE. The only valid response to "Producers have limited coverage by default due to their background nature" is "That is why producers generally do not qualify for Wikipedia articles." Ravenswing 03:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
good day

please revisit this deletion i think AirDee now qualifies as He is now an artist.

link : https://www.musicinafrica.net/magazine/top-sa-hip-hop-songs-2022 41.114.56.212 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Port of Beirut grain silo

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

I am sincerely on the fence with this one. On one hand, this silo held a lot of grain for Lebanon and it played a big part in the 2020 Beirut explosion. But on the other hand, it really didn't rise to any semblance of prominence until the explosion. Right now, the only close claim of notability is that it once held a strategic grain reserve for Lebanon. Other than that, the subsequent events can be noted in the appropriate articles about the explosion (2020 Beirut explosion, Port of Beirut, etc). Right now, it appears that WP:NBUILDING isn't met, so this building would have to rely on WP:GNG alone. And right now, it appears to fail GNG, specifically the significant coverage point: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention... At this point, all of the sources (except maybe one) appear to focus on the blast or its impacts to Lebanon's food reserves, while only mentioning that the silo existed, was destroyed, or took the brunt of the impact. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge details into Port of Beirut It was a workaday silo for most of its existence, but the found info about its creation and overall national strategic importance should go into the main port article. Nate • (chatter) 22:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Port of Beirut, I don't see anything that's worth noting to warrant it having its own page. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete − Wholly ordinary, non-notable industrial facility that gained some exposure following the blast. Any relevant fact about it can be covered in the mentioned articles (2020 Beirut explosion, Port of Beirut). It is doubtful how likely Port of Beirut grain silo would be used even as a search term, so there's no point in keeping it as redirect. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Eeeesh, yes, I'm sure it was a fine grain silo and held grain and everything, and the article utterly fails the GNG and all other notability criteria, seeing as we don't have WP:NSILO in place. I agree with [[User:Deeday-UK|Deeday-UK] that it's not a likely search term, given that searches for "Beirut explosion" or suchlike probably outnumber "Beirut silo" by about ∞:1. Ravenswing 03:27, 27 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) 21:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jewell

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

Not notable Yannick (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has plenty of sources however none of them ticks all 3 boxes - independent, reliable, significant coverage. Many are dead links, others - connected to the subject. WP:BEFORE hasn't added much to that. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO,WP:AUTHOR.Less Unless (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, PR, fails WP:GNG, quite a few SPA's have been involved in editing this wikipage --Devokewater (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 11:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Investing.com

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG as lacking significant coverage in independent, third party sources. The references cited are either from the article subject or are limited interest, trade publications. The general thrust of the article is primarily promotional as contravened by WP:PROMO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a very popular + respected website. --Devokewater @ 15:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with User: Devokewater. SimilarWeb says the website is the 244th most popular website in the world. [5]] Alexa says the website is the 186th most popular website in the world.[6]. Wikipedia does have the Wikipedia ignore all rules rule so that reasonableness can prevail over Wikipedia's independent, third party sources rule. Due to competition from the internet, many newspapers and colleges are closing so Wikipedia should not be overly reliant on journalists/academics. In addition, the website does have articles by Techcrunch, Venturebeat and Business Insider on it.Knox490 (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above. Apple731a (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Struck !vote from blocked disruption-only account editing here to WP:GAME autoconfirmed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "popular + respected" does not mean notability in the wp sense. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem likely that it's notable, but I haven't seen the sourcing yet (it's hard to filter through the many google hits). A challenge is that it's a very basic domain name, which is why some of the better sources aren't actually about the company or site but about the domain name itself (and the high price attached to it). The best I've found that wasn't just "they opened a new office" or "there's a canadian version now" is probably this Pando article, but it would be reassuring to see more like that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

20:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no evidence that this meets either the GNG or pertinent notability criteria for websites. The keep proponents haven't advanced a reason to avoid deletion beyond WP:ITSIMPORTANT. It is not enough to claim that a website is noteworthy; one must have genuine evidence that it is. Ravenswing 03:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This does not appear to meet the GNG. It's a bit promotional and has been made to look properly sourced, but a closer inspection shows it's much worse than it looks. Reyk _YO! 09:30, 27 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) 21:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feezy

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

Non notable article on a musician who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. All awards won by subject of article are all very non notable awards issued by non notable award shows. A WP:BEFORE search shows he lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 20:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 20:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I write this, in just the past few minutes this article has been speedy deleted per WP:R2 then recreated and redirected and some other shenanigans, due to disagreements with moving it over from draftspace. This article should be kept out of mainspace, and any rejections it has received back in draftspace should be made permanent. As for Feezy himself, the article claims that he won three awards, but I can find no reliable coverage of those awards in themselves, indicating that they are probably online-only vanity scams. Of the sources currently in the article, three of them in three different publications repeat the exact same story ("I'm working to place Arewa on music map"), indicating that those are unreliable promotional publications that reprint self-created press releases. Otherwise Feezy is only found in the usual social media and streaming services. The article is clearly an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doomsdayer. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in IRS. Not notable. Less Unless (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Closed under WP:SKCRIT #2: "The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and... no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion." Clear revenge nomination after accusing article creator of being on a "reckless deletion spree" for nominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahdat (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Alhawary

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

While the BLP cites some RS but they merely namecheck or quote the subject. I couldn't find the solid coverage which discuss the subject in detail.It fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 19 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 00:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. V. Satish

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

Non-notable person; Lacks significant coverage, They acted only in one film, so doesn't qualify WP:NACTOR either. Ab207 (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article full of buzzwords. There is no substance just promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Definitely fails WP:NACTOR, and the article would need massive, massive clean up. The subject is covered in Forbes, which is a point in the keep favor. I'm not seeing a lot outside of that coverage-wise. EverybodyEdits (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of characters in The Railway Series. Tone 00:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thomas & Friends railway engines

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

Fails WP:LISTN, WP:IINFO because the list has no evidence of independent notability and offers nothing more than being an unnecessary in-universe list. It has been tagged as a concern for over a decade and does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Pure WP:FANCRUFT Spiderone 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. In looking at this, I started following links to the extant articles about individual engines, as well as the other "narrow gauge" list and its characters. So far every article that I've clicked on has been either unsourced or primary sourced. Seems like a set of pages perhaps best taken to ttte.fandom.com? I don't have a great sense of the notability of any of this stuff, and a search for sources is made difficult by low quality results... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft at its best. It has a better place on Fandom Wiki. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of characters in The Railway Series, in this universe, aren't engines=characters anyway? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Fancruft. Fails WP:LISTN. Can't be referenced because it's WP:OR // Timothy :: talk 03:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Light merge to List of characters in The Railway Series or List of Thomas & Friends characters (which should be merged with each other). The parent list is notable, but has been split into this separate articles that fail WP:LISTN; if we delete this without including the characters in the parent it would be incomplete. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 14:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just no. This is trivial and not encyclopedia worthy. Does not pass our SNG or GNG Lightburst (talk) 17:25, 24 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 Working with Lemons#Members. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Bagley

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

Fails WP:NBIO & WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Working with Lemons#Members which has pretty much the same information. There is not enough significant coverage of Mia Bagley outside of her family musical group to support a standalone article.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Working with Lemons#Members. I agree with the above comment. Qualifying references are in context to the family article. No evidence of stand alone notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, it's all there, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 22 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 00:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smita Rajgopal

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

Unable to find reliable, in-depth sources on this "graphic design professional". The creator of the article has openly declared a conflict of interest related to the subject's company on their user page. Subject in question fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, due to lack of independent and significant coverage. MaysinFourty (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable graphic designer. Plus Wikipedia is not supposed to be used in such promotional ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of any notability; graphic designers would need to do something quite remarkable to pass GNG and this clearly hasn't happened Spiderone 13:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 11:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rubric Records

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

This completely unsourced article has existed for 14 years. A search for sources came up with nothing substantial. There is no reason to have articles in Wikipedia that lack all sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient sourcing out there to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:CORP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 19 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 Deanne Pandey. The author's notability is a topic for another discussion Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Not Stressed

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

This book article is basically an advertisement for a "Bollwood fitness expert". No in-depth or reliable sources exist that attest to its notability. Fails every single criterion under WP:NBOOK. MaysinFourty (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MaysinFourty (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- no sources that suggest notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author's page. pburka (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As looking at WorldCat here, shows it is held by a couple of libraries so redirect to author's page. GSS ^💬 11:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to have been reviewed anywhere. I'm not convinced that a redirect to the author's page would be useful, as it seems likely that the author isn't notable either. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:54, 22 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 10:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz

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

The article exists solely because he was the father of the wife of the Belgian monarch, which is against WP:INVALIDBIO. The subject has received no significant coverage that would satisfy WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Virtually nothing aside from him having existed and died has been reported by reliable sources. The entire article content is plainly described as "Genealogy", yet Wikipedia is not meant to be a genealogy database; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either d'Udekem or Queen Mathilde of Belgium#Early life and family. TJMSmith (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no indication of notability.Smeat75 (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge as suggested. There's news coverage only because his daughter is queen and his grandchildren are royalty by birth. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/merge targets needs to be decided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is a genealogical record and Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything about the subject directly and indepth. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Per 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 01:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete The entry is almost noting but genealogy. Mangoe (talk) 02:18, 20 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 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St John's Lutheran School, Jindera

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

Article about a Pre+K-6 school which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed only WP:ROUTINE coverage and not independent sources covering the topic directly and in detail. // Timothy :: talk 17:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I moved what useable material (only two independent sources) there is into the Jindera page (where a mention of the school is more appropriate), but because only one other page links to this article there is no point merging or redirecting. Deus et lex (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahua (film)

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

The first AFD discussion (March 2015) is not relevant here. That discussion was speedily closed, because the article went as part of a mass deletion of pages added by a WP:SOCK.

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in November 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a press release, and that was all. (It's helpful to refine a search by including either "film" or "1969", because there's also Mahua (plant) and Mahua (liquor) to get in the way.) Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG - delete. Narky Blert (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 21:24, 20 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. Initial claims of GNG have not been supported by other editors. I think there is generally a consensus that this person is not notable Fenix down (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravil Tagir

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article fails WP:Footy and WP:FPL. It's rather under WP:TOOSOON. PROD was contested based on WP:GHITS. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly reaches GNG with all the sources in the article. --Coco (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources are either player profiles or transfer news, both of which are generally considered WP:ROUTINE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one player profile, and barely any pure transfer news: Sabah clearly covers extensively the subject of the player as a whole; the fact that the national press agency portrays the player (although not as extensively) is also a clear sign of notability imho. Takvim also refers to the young player as the "League's most valuable player".

And although goal or teamtalk address some potential transfers, they also produce a significant coverage of the player. --Coco (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article is even better sourced that the last time it was prodded - not to mention the first time it was prodded. I'm seeing a huge amount of media coverage for this player. There's nothing routine about this player, or the coverage - and this is an example of WP:NOTROUTINE! Nfitz (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some reliable sources of Sabah, Anadolu Agency and Takvim exist (present in the article itself). Enough coverage to keep. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 10:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is WP:ROUTINE and not significant enough to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 11:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely sources that are not "routine", as explained above. See the sports section of what is and is not routine coverage. --Coco (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The online Turkish-language coverage is not in-depth and generally consists of routine transfer speculation. Jogurney (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is not fully pro yet, there is no actual claim to notability. We should not be creating articles because people are on a path that might lead to notability, we wait until they actually reach notability to create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !voters may wish to expand on their analysis of the sources - most arguments so far just assert that they are either WP:ROUTINE or WP:NOTROUTINE without much explanation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GirthSummit _(blether) 10:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete fails WP:FOOTY, and I would think is under the notability threshold.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even though I understand and appreciate the efforts of User:Cocô53 and User:Nfitz, and I thank them, and normally I'd vote to keep Ravil Tagir's article, I must vote for deletion of Ravil Tagir as well as I demand Burak Ince to be nominated for deletion, as per the status quo Turkish leagues in WP:FPL. Although current status is on sole discretion of limited number of editors who are aware of WP:FPL project page (many editors are ignored), my objection in general continues that Süper Lig, TFF First League, TFF Second and TFF Third League are classified as professional leagues, as constituted and governed under Turkish Football Federation. I brought enough level of 1st party evidences (no POV, no Transfermarkt) to display here that these are professional leagues. I invite everybody to contribute this discussion about status of these leagues. Another issue is that the definition of "Fully Professional League" at WP:FPL still does not exist, yet many articles are deleted pursuant to votes relying on this hollow notion. This is absurd and disgraceful for efforts of all editors with good faith! Editors who utilise this criterion to vote to delete must fill under the notion of "Fully Professional League". Again, I vote Tagir to be deleted as per status quo, but I want Turkish leagues to be recognise under "List of fully professional leagues". Dear User:Cocô53 and User:Nfitz, I appeciate your efforts also here but first, there's a clarification needed. Regards. Isik (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on User:Isik - you think that the Turkish level of football is fully-professional, but you are casting a delete vote? Isn't that an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Looking back at that discussion, even User:Fenix down thinks the second tier is likely fully professional. But why do you talk about professional instead of fully professional? If you are paid €10 a week to play football, you are professional, but clearly you are not fully professional (full-time), because you need another job. The examples you brought forward in that debate were about what the top players on a team make. It doesn't matter what the top player on the team makes. What does the 18th player on the team make? Though there are many examples of leagues where some teams are fully professional, and others aren't (the 5th and 6th levels of English soccer for example). So really the question is what does the 18th player on the lowest-paid team in the league make? Everyone here would be happy to add more leagues to WP:FPL if references can be found that support it. Nfitz (talk) 16:11, 24 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 17:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ART Factory

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

Article was created by the CEO of the company (Indication). Fails every single notability guideline. No in-depth, reliable sources exist. Just a piss-poor advertisement for a very non-notable company! Speedy delete. MaysinFourty (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Google search yields nothing. It doesn't even seem to have its own website. --Ab207 (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Piss-poor advertisement indeed. Sources are trash. Absolutely non-notable company. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing of prominence comes up on search. Further, the findings from the nominator @MaysinFourty: labels the intent. Ktin (talk) 23:43, 19 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) 21:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kaufmann

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

This article fails to meet the criteria of the general notability guideline and uses Wikipedia as a promotional medium. A page about Mr Kaufmann's business (Lingq) was deleted in August 2009, a previous version of this page was deleted in September 2009, and another page about him (Steven Kaufmann) was deleted in January 2018. Khiikiat (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Steve Kaufmann is clearly notable in being one of perhaps three or four recognised Hyperpolyglpots in the world. Speaking between 15 and 20 languages, depending on how you count it, he is in the top 4 in the world for being able to speak the most amount of languages...clearly this is a notable acheivement. He is active in the world of multilanguage speakers, both a speaker and organiser of conferences, has won awards for his work, and was featured in a documentary. He has written a couple of books and has a successful youtube account (268k subscribers, which I'm pretty sure is the largest multi language learning channel, more than many others who do have wikipedia pages) where he offers advice and techniques for language learning. He has travelled overseas and been interviewed for his language ability, giving the interview in the local language. He is also a good example of older people with successful Youtube accounts (which 2 articles have addressed specifically) and an advocate for older people learning languages. Since the time that the previous articles were deleted there is now more discussion of him, with new RS, which has been added to the article. IMHO He is long overdue a wikipedia page. Thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note one of the previous pages was deleted for being promotional. The focus of the criticism, a language learning business, is not mentioned in this article - this article focusses specifically on his abilities as a language speaker, and his efforts to spread techniques. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agree that the article subject does not appear to meet GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Tone of the article is promotional. Citobun (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Citobun I have adjusted this article, and actively tried to discuss what he has done in a neutral fashion, and was mainly trying to focus on his abilities and achievements, rather than take a promotional tone. I've not mentioned the name of his books, OR even the name of his language site. If you have suggestions for exactly what is promotional here, and should be removed, please let me know - happy to makes changes and remove anything to deal with that criticism of the article, at least.Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notable polyglot and Youtube personality, in fact I was looking for an article on him.† Encyclopædius 18:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sourcing in several reputable publications: Arab News, Japan Today, The Japan Times, The Montreal Gazette, and Catalan News. I also don't see any promotional language in the article, and no basis is given for disputing neutrality (a linguist is unlikely to have negative publicity). The language is matter of fact and doesn't directly promote any of the subject's business ventures (alluding to them in a general way is okay). Easily passes WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kaufmann is included in a significant way in several resources, here, here and here. This passes WP:GNG. Mepo233 (talk) 21:47, 25 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) 13:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genopole

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

Cross-wiki spam, disguised by multiple but related IP's The Banner talk 15:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Definite red flag of spam, upon further check with other wiki. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch version of this article is also nominated for deletion. There is in fact a whole bunch of French institutions that is written/expanded by one range of IPs: 2a01:c000::/19. One of the IPs worked on the article] in French, German en Wikidata, all on the same day. The Banner talk 17:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And no, in this case I have no clue how to start a sockpuppet investigation as it looks to be a case against an IP-range. The Banner talk 18:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing mostly off-topic discussion from now-blocked users. Mz7 (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think you need to think on previous warnings given to you : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AThe+Banner 92.184.116.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you have already lack of content based arguments that you have to become personal? The Banner talk 10:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop having fun on Wikipedia and doing WP:POV. Here it is a serious place. Thank you. 2A01:CB09:D033:B009:FD83:808E:1B28:F6B7 (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This is very notable institution, public, non-profil, worldwide known. English Wikipedia is not Dutch Wikipedia. I am also wondering about WP:POV of « The Banner » user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.184.116.35 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I understand that you want to protect this article. Funny enough, in this whole mess there are IPs active from two IP-ranges. The one mentioned above and the range 92.184.116.0 - 92.184.117.255. And see, we have two IPs from that range. The Banner talk 10:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please stop using Wikipedia to have fun and make jokes. I am sure you will find other places for that. Thank you very much for your understanding. 92.184.107.70 (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you will find this a joke too? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YtoSu. The Banner talk 11:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) 2A01:CB01:3049:1832:DDB1:10B3:1ECB:958 (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article bas not been created by « ip » but by myself. I did it because it is a non-profit very famous institution on genetics. Last but not least, English Wikipedia is not the Dutch Wikipedia. YtoSu (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On top of the other stuff, it doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, either. Language barrier likely affecting BEFORE, but the article has only provided three references, two of which are not independent. I'm not following the "English Wikipedia is not Dutch Wikipedia" statements. What does that mean for keeping an article? Side question: Why is this tagged as an AfC submission? I can't tell that it actually was... -2pou (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - changing !vote per sources uncovered below showing that they WP:NEXIST. Thanks for posting them, Elmidae & Comte0. -2pou (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Admittedly the current sourcing makes the baby Jesus cry, but there are at least a couple of serious articles about the project: [7], [8]. Branciard (ref #1) may be connected to the project, Dupuy-Maury (ref #2) appears to be an independent journalist. Not sure whether that's sufficient for GNG, but I would tend to say yes. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clear opinion on whether this particular page should be kept. However, I think we need an article on biocluster, which appears[9][10] to be what they're calling sort of miniature Silicon Valleys for biotech these days. There were 180 of them in Europe a decade ago, according to that 2011 paper. It's possible that this page should be kept, and it's possible that it would make more sense to write a more general article and list it as an example of their intentional specialization in "biotherapies" (vs. other specific biological sciences or vs. a random assortment of biological sciences). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources from Le Parisien ([11], [12]), Les Echos ([13]), La Tribune ([14]) make the article pass WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, effectively this article is created by a sockpuppeteer? The Banner talk 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning towards WP:TNT prima facie it appears notable, however the sockpuppeting activities is of concern. --Devokewater (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per sources above // Timothy :: talk 13:33, 27 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 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royce Isaacs

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

Non-notable professional wrestler, fails WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable professional wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 24 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 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobcad

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

NN company, fails the GNG, WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. No coverage in reliable sources found (even under the company's correct name of "BobCAD-CAM"), except for namedrops and casual mentions. It exists; I just can't find evidence that it's notable. Notability tagged for over a decade.

NB: should reliable sourcing surface, I strongly recommend a page move to the company's correct name. Ravenswing 21:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 21:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 21:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Computer-aided_design#Software. This doesn't seem notable enough for an article, but it might be worth mentioning in the list of Cad software in that article. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:38, 11 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) 01:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. I don't see much point in redirecting to a list article, is that normal? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not many sources available, WP:SIGCOV QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 01:04, 27 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. Per WP:RELIST it is not usually appropriate to relist a debate more than twice, and I find that nothing useful would be likely to result from spinning the wheel and pushing it out another week. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All-American Baseball Challenge

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

While the title sounds impressive, and the teams in this competition appear to be verifiably real, though from minor and independent leagues it would appear to me that this competition is simply something for fans to watch while the 2020 Major League Baseball season reorganizes itself. That said, in my opinion there appears to be enough online mentions of this competition for this article to be considered via an WP:AFD discussion, rather than outright WP:A7 deletion. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This subject has clearly received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per WP:GNG. It doesn't matter if the subject is only meant as an event for MLB fans to watch. AviationFreak💬 11:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:41, 3 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) 01:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 19 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Darkest of Discos

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

Fails GNG for Music Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and [20]. It won an award in ECMA 2011 Music Award. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:30, 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) 01:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 19 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. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting Pink With Knives

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

NN band, fails the GNG and WP:NBAND. No substantive coverage in reliable sources beyond namedrops, interviews (explicitly debarred by NBAND C#1) and casual mentions. Notability tagged for over a decade. Article created by SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this was. Ravenswing 16:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 16:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 16:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it should probably be moved to Cutting Pink with Knives if kept. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, their MySpace page is titled "Cutting Pink With Knives is dead," so I'd guess they did capitalize the 'with.' For what it's worth. Ravenswing 18:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting band. Their name alone caught my attention. And "electronic grindcore" - my brains are blown. Interesting combination. Here's an album review from Drowned in Sound which is a reliable source. Update: Sputnikmusic and a review of their concert with Polysics. This might do it. The rest of the results are the standard unreliable sites, stuff where the words are separated and sites of dubious reliability.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, found Drowned in Sound and Time Out, but that was about it... Caro7200 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting a third time because three sources which are possibly reliable and likely have significant coverage have been posited, which indicates GNG is met, but there has been no resulting discussion. Therefore consensus is not determined yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Happy to address those three sources. The second is a namedrop; the third is a casual mention three sentences long. Neither comes remotely close to meeting WP:SIGCOV. As far as the album review goes, no criterion in WP:BAND is met by multiple album reviews, never mind by a single one. (Notability for an album requires multiple reliable reviews in its own right.) I stand by my nomination. Perhaps this might wind up soft deletion, but I'd like to point out to the next closing admin that no one, as yet, has advocated keeping this article. Ravenswing 03:36, 27 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 15:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DoiT International

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

Fails WP:NCORP (see WP:ORGCRIT). Poor sourcing: Glassdoor, Crunchbase, press releases (GlobeNewswire, PRNewsWire). WP:COI / WP:UPE concerns. Loksmythe (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above, fails to meet WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. Jr8825 • Talk 15:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, can find nothing but press releases and posts to a few low-notability blogs. Article creator also created one about the company's CFO at Giridhar Premsingh, which is also currently at AFD. Captain Calm (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found a few blogs and promotional primary sources but nothing else. Certainly fails WP:NCORP. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 12:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spilulu

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

Sources cited are youtube links and unreliable blogs and websites. A websearch doesn't find anything concrete. Fails GNG, WP:NSINGER - hako9 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, the sourcing in the article is trash. But the Google results aren't any better. Same old junk sites like Facebook, Apple Music, SoundCloud, etc, etc. No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt any possible derivation of his name. An article on this guy was already deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dj Spilulu, and at one time there was also an article under his given name Christian Mbolela (the page was moved in the middle of that first AfD, I think). In this version, most of the sources are YouTube videos that he probably uploaded himself just like anyone else could. Sources that are not YouTube are mostly unreliable promotional sites that reprint press releases. He has self-promoted on dozens of sites that allow beginners to do so; at least he is thorough, but Wikipedia is not one of those sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:03, 19 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) 09:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sur Piyasi Music Academy

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

Fails WP:ORG. Zero significant coverage. I did google search but found nothing. Most of sources listed in the article are primary or passing mention. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

বন্ধু আফতাবুজ্জামান, Sur Piyasi Music Academy এই পেজটি আমা তৈরি করেছি। এটি একটি জনপ্রিয় গীটার ও সংগীত প্রশিক্ষণ কেন্দ্র। অত্যন্ত জনপ্রিয় ১৯৯৪ সাল থেকেই। Sur Piyasi Music Academy এই নামে গুগল করলে গুগল ম্যাপ, ফেসবুক পেজ, ইউটিউব চ্যানেল পাওয়া যায়। যে রেফারেন্স রয়েছে তার মধ্যে এই সংস্থার অধ্যক্ষের নামে একটি ওয়েবসাইট রয়েছে। আমি এই সংস্থার সঙ্গে যোগাযোগ করে বিস্তারিত প্রমাণ জানার চেষ্টা করবো। দয়া করে আমাকে বলুন কি কি রেফারেন্স সঠিক প্রমাণ হিসেবে বিবেচিত হবে। বন্ধু ভালো থাকবেন। Arindamchandra123 (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources to be found. Fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG. SD0001 (talk) 13:39, 21 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 17:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SUR PIYASI MUSIC ACADEMY

46/13, Shyama Nanda Bagchi Ln, Mohon Roy Para, Berhampore, West Bengal 742103

Is the address of the school, as per Google search the address of the said school is found. Editors please see the matter. Arindamchandra123 (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that the school doesn't exist but what makes it notable? Spiderone 14:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. WP:BEFORE showed nothing. Fails WP:NORG WP:GNG WP:NSCHOOL // Timothy :: talk 13:46, 27 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cerity Partners

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 19 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) 00:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-03 ✍️ create

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Kojo Afandoh

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy GNG. Furthermore article claims she is an actor but I can’t see subject satisfying any criterion from WP:NACTOR. A before search links me to self published sources or sponsored posts hence automatically classified as unreliable Celestina007 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This is a very new article. In its current shape notability of the subject is not demonstrated, but with more time and help, the creator may find better sources such as newspaper reviews. Mccapra (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra, not sure how that logic is plausible in this scenario. In any case they could always ask for a WP:REFUND. But for now per WP:CRYSTALBALL a delete seems most apt. Celestina007 14:04, 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 02:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: maybe WP:TOOSOON, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR // Timothy :: talk 13:53, 27 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 19:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Inn Center

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

run of the mill local organization. Fails WP:NORG and WP:NONPROFIT. Graywalls (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete I guess it's called Shelterhouse now. There's some coverage of it online under the new name. Although, I can't find anything that's not either local or trivial coverage. Maybe someone else can. Until then though, this doesn't seem to pass WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong ~~Tentative~~ keep local sources, as long as they are reliable, are fine; there's no need for national or international attention. Articles on homeless services are few and far between here on Wikipedia, let's try a little harder to find sources for it. I can try scouring some newspaper databases when I'm home from work. $ɱ$ (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:AUD part of WP:NORG. It's a fail under WP:NONPROFIT, because it's not of national/international scale. Graywalls (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I agree with this. I write about many local places and issues, and it's sad to see a rule that discriminates against local topics. Nevertheless, this is more than just an agency/nonprofit, much of the article is/could be about the physical building, the homeless shelter. It's more than just an organization, and has to be treated by general notability guidelines moreso.

ɱ

(talk) 20:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to strong keep based on hundreds of sources in the Cincinnati Enquirer, a regional newspaper of high reputation.

ɱ

(talk) 22:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Nevertheless, this is more than just an agency/nonprofit, much of the article is/could be about the physical building, the homeless shelter. It's more than just an organization, and has to be treated by general notability guidelines moreso." Strongly disagree. If you haven't noticed, newspapers in many areas routinely talk about sizable buildings being demolished, rebuilt, renovated, named in honor of whatever. If there's a shoe store that's in a notable national historic registry listed building, those articles can not be used to inflate the notability about the article on a shoe store, but if the notable building has a page, then a sentence or two about the shoe store is likely warranted if an article about the building mentions the shoe store. The principles of no inherent or inherited notability may apply here. Some of the articles are primarily about Buddy Gray. The founder being notable, or the organization being notable does not establish notability between both. The founder could be notable, but that doesn't guarantee the organization being notable. Currently, there's an article entry for both. Graywalls (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of our disagreement on that, I provided sufficient sources from across the state and other areas, in many different newspapers. There is no valid argument left for deletion.

ɱ

(talk) 03:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also appearing throughout Ohio and Kentucky: the Akron Beacon Journal, the Newark Advocate, the Kentucky Enquirer, News-Herald in Port Clinton, Mansfield News Journal...

ɱ

(talk) 22:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added four more references from the Cincinnati Enquirer, where the Center has sometimes been front-page news. (See especially "Will the Drop Inn Center be pushed out?" from January 2008.) This is not "local or trivial coverage". Cincinnati is a big city, and front-page news from the Cincinnati area is "regional". I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that that would count as one, per WP:MULTSOURCES. Graywalls (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Graywalls yhat it should count as one source. I'm also still waiting for you to show me a guideline, or hell even a discussion, that agrees with your whole thing about a local source from a "big" city (whatever that means) counting as a regional one. Especially since you keep using it everywhere to justify keeping articles and in extremely missleading ways. Adamant1 (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a nationally-syndicated article from the Associated Press: "Homes for the homeless are where his heart was: Cincinnati complex named for advocate", from January 1999. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was published in a local Ohio newspaper. Not to say your wrong that it was "nationally-syndicated", but I'd like to see what national source it was originally published in, if any. Personally, I think it's deeply flawed to treat the associated press like a national news organization, because that's not what it is. Since it operates as a cooperative, unincorporated association. So, just because a minor local newspaper associated with it prints something supposedly by the Associated Press it doesn't automatically make it a national news story or magically turn them into a national news outlet. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the clipping, it says Associated Press at the top of the article. The Associated Press is a national news reporting and distribution service, which distributes stories printed in more than a thousand newspapers across America. It is exactly the kind of coverage that you've been asking for. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know the article says it's from the Associated Press. The whole "cooperative, unincorporated association" thing was a direct quote from their Wikipedia article and that's really all I know about them. I'm fine using them as a source though. Although, a few people in the conversations I've seen about them have said it's better to cite them directly instead of the paper their article is in. Which is why I mentioned I'd like to know where it originally came from. So the article could cite the original source. I'm not going to nitpick it in this case though. You probably couldn't find the original AP article to cite anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the source shared by Toughpigs. That source is not even close to having the depth of satisfying CORPDEPTH. Graywalls (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's down to those who want to delete it to demonstrate that this is a run of the mill organization. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding that it's just the opposite. Would you happen to have the policy stating this? Graywalls (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC) @Rathfelder: Graywalls (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just about every largish city have ubiquitous homeless shelters. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and it's not a local guide or local chamber of commerce business directory. These ubiquitous presence needs to be notable enough to merit inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: [21] there are sources and Significant long-term coverage QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 00:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment What specific sources? WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't a source. The first source that comes up for me is called "In the United States. Congress. House. Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Subcommittee on Health - 2014" documents of those sort are considered a primary source. Graywalls (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided links to hundreds of news sources from Cincinnati and beyond, above. Please both, take a look at that. There is a wealth of resources here that cannot be ignored.

ɱ

(talk) 01:55, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Sorie Kanu

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE:WP:BASIC. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. Gives the appearance of being autobiographical/promotional. // Timothy :: talk 06:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:33, 9 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) 00:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create

Delete per nom. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. EverybodyEdits (talk) 22:56, 21 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) 08:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Drinks Group Holdings

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

A non-notable holding company. I am not able to find any coverage that would satisfy WP:NCORP. Taking to AfD as a PROD by Þjarkur was contested by the page creator. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a single mention in independent sources. That goes for the company, its subsidiaries, and all of its brands. Am surprised not to see any coverage of their brands, would expect to find mentions in beer enthusiast blogs. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 24 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Misadventures of Oscar McFoisy

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

Non-notable newspaper column with a charming title. Amazingly, it had zero hits at the Internet Archive, and all the Google hits appear to be WP mirrors. I was prepared to call it a hoax but it does appear in one of the ELs ([22]). (Incidentally, I have never seen an article with this many tags.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:35, 19 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 14:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Royal

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

Biography of a living person, largely written by the subject himself, with the sole reference being a broken link to his CV. I can't find any better sources or anything to suggest the subject meets WP:NBIO or WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searches for Jeffrey G Royal (there is a different Jeffrey Royal there too) on Google Scholar are here: (Jeffrey Royal publications indexed by Google Scholar) I have no ablity to judge if the citation count is acceptable or too low. I'm neutral for the moment Fiddle Faddle 13:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete creating an article on oneself is clearly and deliberately against Wikipedia policies, and we need to stop tolerating such disruptive behavior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His citation record is thin even for a low-citation field, and perusing other biographies of archaology, the field doesn't appear to be particularly low-citation. So no WP:NPROF C1. I don't think the RPM institute is large or well-established enough for WP:NPROF C7. I don't see any other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:51, 22 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. I don't believe relisting and spinning the wheel a third time is of material use. User:Cunard has presented numerous sources which seem to me to be reasonable, and nobody has refuted that. If anyone feels they want to move, redirect, or merge this or other pages, that can be done under the usual editorial processes. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Street Medicine Institute

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

The organization in and itself does not appear to pass WP:NORG or WP:CORPDEPTH. It is named in the LA Times, but a merely a sentence mention. None of the existing sources even mention it. I'm not confident that there are sources that multiple, reliable, independent sources that covers this organization in depth. The intent of this article appears to be advertisement. Four major contributors are SPAs. Graywalls (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to street medicine per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Rationale for a rename

The article was originally called "street medicine". On 1 March 2016, Rathfelder (talk · contribs) renamed the article from street medicine to Street Medicine Institute with the rationale "The article is about the organisation, not the concept". I recommend renaming the article back to street medicine and refocusing the article to be about the concept because most of the sources I've found focus on the "street medicine" concept instead of Street Medicine Institute.

Sources

Doohan, Noemi C.; Mishori, Ranit (2020). "Street Medicine: Creating a "Classroom Without Walls" for Teaching Population Health". Medical Science Educator. 30. Springer Science+Business Media: 513–521. doi:10.1007/s40670-019-00849-4. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
Griswold, Kim S.; Hubeishy, Mohammad; Benson, Katelyn (2020). "ub heals Street Medicine: A Model of Care and Connection". The Ethics of Homelessness: Philosophical Perspectives. Brill Publishers. pp. 344–353. doi:10.1163/9789004420366_024. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
Rubin, Rita (2020-02-05). "Taking Medicine to the Streets to Care for Those Who Live There". JAMA. 323 (8). American Medical Association: 695–698. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.21515. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
Bowen, Elizabeth; Savino, Ryan; Irish, Andrew (2019). Larkin, Heather; Aykanian, Amanda; Streeter, Calvin L. (eds.). Homelessness and Health Disparities: A Health Equity Lens. Cham: Springer Nature. pp. 72–73. ISBN 978-3-030-03726-0. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
Karlamangla, Soumya (2020-02-16). "Finding patients where they live: Street medicine grows, along with homeless population". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
Andrew, Dave (2018-12-10). "Street Medicine: PAs Deliver Healthcare to the Homeless". American Academy of Physician Assistants. Archived from the original on 2020-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
Rubinkaum, Michael (2016-03-21). "Street medicine for homeless goes mainstream". The Columbian. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2020-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
Montgomery, David (2018-09-21). "The homeless get sick — 'street medicine' is there for them". The Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2020-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
Maddocks, Tim (2020-03-25). "'This Is the Burning Building.' Inside One Man's Mission to Treat LA's Homeless for COVID-19". Esquire. Archived from the original on 2020-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-09.

Sources with quotes

Doohan, Noemi C.; Mishori, Ranit (2020). "Street Medicine: Creating a "Classroom Without Walls" for Teaching Population Health". Medical Science Educator. 30. Springer Science+Business Media: 513–521. doi:10.1007/s40670-019-00849-4. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
The article notes:

In 1992, Jim Withers, a faculty attending physician at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Mercy Hospital Internal Medicine Residency Program, dressed like a homeless person and, with a backpack filled with medicine, began clan- destinely providing free healthcare on the streets at night for the unsheltered in his community [1]. What began as one doctor’s mission to create a BClassroom of the Streets^ to teach about caring for excluded people, has grown over the last 25 years into the Street Medicine Institute (SMI) and movement (www. streetmedicine.org). Through the Street Medicine Institute’s annual international symposium, the movement has developed global reach. Based on information from the SMI website as well as anecdotal reports, Street Medicine colleagues on every continent are innovating and defining best practices, in partnership with a wide range of brick and mortar settings from academic centers to rural health clinics, all geared towards serving the unsheltered.
As the Street Medicine movement has grown, so has learn- er interest, as evidenced by the many clubs and programs that have popped up in affiliation with various medical institutions around the world. Despite the anecdotal growth in learner interest in homelessness and street medicine, its true extent has yet to be formally studied. It is important to distinguish between educational initiatives about homelessness (some- times done via panels, didactics, speaker series, and electives) and the practice of street medicine—where medical care is provided on the street and in transitional settings where unsheltered homeless people live: under bridges and over- passes, in parks, alleys, and on street corners.
Griswold, Kim S.; Hubeishy, Mohammad; Benson, Katelyn (2020). "ub heals Street Medicine: A Model of Care and Connection". The Ethics of Homelessness: Philosophical Perspectives. Brill Publishers. pp. 344–353. doi:10.1163/9789004420366_024. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
The abstract notes:

Street Medicine is an emerging model to engage homeless people in health care. Most Street Medicine programs involve attending physicians and medical students conducting after hours “rounds” to encounter homeless children and adults, try to engage them in care, and make appropriate connections to primary and mental health services. In the field, urgent care is offered. Providing a human connection and being available to listen are important for both street carers and street homeless. Medical students and their physician preceptors are able to connect with communities they serve and learn new ways to communicate with this vulnerable population. We report on the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences Street Medicine program, its goals, development, and early achievements.
Rubin, Rita (2020-02-05). "Taking Medicine to the Streets to Care for Those Who Live There". JAMA. 323 (8). American Medical Association: 695–698. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.21515. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
The article notes:

Jim Withers, MD, and his colleagues make house calls for people who have no home. Withers, medical director of Pittsburgh Mercy’s Operation Safety Net, coined the term street medicine more than a quarter-century ago to describe his team’s work. Street medicine practitioners care for the unsheltered homeless, or “rough sleepers,” where they live—not only on the street but beneath overpasses and bridges, along riverbanks, and behind supermarkets.
...
For each of the past 27 years, Withers has cared for about 1200 rough sleepers around downtown Pittsburgh. Thanks in large part to his efforts, street medicine has become an international movement, as evidenced by attendees representing 15 countries at the 15th Annual International Street Medicine Symposium, held recently in Pittsburgh.
...
Withers, an internist who is a member of the teaching faculty at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, helped found the Street Medicine Institute a decade ago and volunteers as its medical director.
Bowen, Elizabeth; Savino, Ryan; Irish, Andrew (2019). Larkin, Heather; Aykanian, Amanda; Streeter, Calvin L. (eds.). Homelessness and Health Disparities: A Health Equity Lens. Cham: Springer Nature. pp. 72–73. ISBN 978-3-030-03726-0. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
The book notes:

Meeting People Where They Are: Street Medicine and Mobile Clinic Programs

Another intervention used to address homeless individuals' health-care needs is the street medicine or mobile clinic model of service provision. These practices involve service providers going directly to the recipients and providing care at their location, rather than the traditional model in which services are rendered at the care provider's fixed location. Physician Jim Withers began doing street medicine work in Pennsylvania in 1992, later collaborating with fellow international street medicine providers and eventually founding the Street Medicine Institute in 2008 (Withers 2011). Reflecting on beginning his street medicine work, Dr. James O'Connell, president of the Boston HCH program, recalls that the end of his scholastic training was the beginning of his practical training in understanding the consequences of homelessness and poverty (O'Connell 2015). Extending the street medicine model, medical schools at universities such as the University at Buffalo have created student-run street medicine programs, which offer unique training opportunities for students as well as critical services to people experiencing homelessness (University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences 2017).
Karlamangla, Soumya (2020-02-16). "Finding patients where they live: Street medicine grows, along with homeless population". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
The article notes:

Funded by USC, Feldman’s team is one of several providing medical care on the street for L.A. County’s growing homeless population. There are about 59,000 people in the county living in streets, shelters or vehicles.
These so-called street medicine teams are multiplying nationwide as well, with more than 90 across the country and some doctors weighing whether the practice should be taught in medical schools. The shift acknowledges not just the humanity of homeless people but also a nationwide failure to house them and provide healthcare to everyone who needs it.
Andrew, Dave (2018-12-10). "Street Medicine: PAs Deliver Healthcare to the Homeless". American Academy of Physician Assistants. Archived from the original on 2020-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
The article notes:

The concept of “street medicine” is to deliver what the Feldmans call “transitional primary care” wherever a homeless patient resides, which is often in urban campsites, public parks, and under bridges. The quality metrics and scope of practice — everything from dispensing medications, drawing labs, and conducting a variety of point-of-care testing — are equal to that of what one would expect from a traditional clinic.
The structure of street medicine teams and programs can vary widely, but many include a key team member known as a “street guide.” The street guide is a non-medical provider familiar with where the homeless populations are located, which areas are safe, and which should be avoided, as well as where specific patients can typically be found.
...
Around the world, the number of street medicine programs, similar in concept to the one the Feldmans started, has been on the rise in recent years. But the practice has been around for decades.
...
Care Connections in Fort Worth, Texas, is a prime example of a program that can attest to the value of street medicine. A component of the JPS Health Network, the program has gained significant traction within the region largely due to increased provider collaboration and training opportunities.
Rubinkaum, Michael (2016-03-21). "Street medicine for homeless goes mainstream". The Columbian. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2020-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
The article notes:

Street medicine got its start more than 30 years ago as an altruistic pursuit of individual doctors and nurses. In cities scattered around the country and the world, they left the office and headed outside to care for the chronically homeless, a population that is generally sicker and dies far younger than people with homes.
Until recently, though, relatively few of the 60 street medicine programs that operate nationwide have been affiliated with a hospital or health system. As health networks face increasing pressure to rein in costs, that could change.
Homeless people use the emergency room more often than the general population, stay longer and are readmitted at higher rates — a triple financial blow that’s inflicting “open wounds, bleeding wounds for hospitals,” says Dr. Jim Withers, a street medicine pioneer who launched Pittsburgh Mercy’s Operation Safety Net program in 1992.
Montgomery, David (2018-09-21). "The homeless get sick — 'street medicine' is there for them". The Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2020-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
The article notes:

That description — “a hard life” — could easily apply to the entire caseload of homeless patients served by the still-emerging field of street medicine.
“Street medicine,” which had only a few resolute practitioners when it got its start in the mid-1980s, has surged within the past decade, growing into a network of programs in over 85 cities and in 15 countries. In the United States, street medicine programs are operating in more than 20 states and at least 45 cities, including New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Detroit and Washington, D.C.
Advocates attribute much of the growth to organized efforts by street medicine supporters to expand awareness and create new programs. The first street medicine symposium was held in 2005 in Pittsburgh, followed by the creation of the Street Medicine Institute four years later. A 2017 symposium in Allentown, Pennsylvania, drew more than 500 international participants, compared with a handful at the Pittsburgh gathering.
Maddocks, Tim (2020-03-25). "'This Is the Burning Building.' Inside One Man's Mission to Treat LA's Homeless for COVID-19". Esquire. Archived from the original on 2020-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
The article notes:

Street medicine is what it sounds like: the practice of providing health care to the unsheltered homeless—people who live in the streets, in abandoned buildings, or in their cars. There are more than 44,000 unsheltered homeless people in Los Angeles alone, the most in any American city.
...
On March 20 the Institute of Street Medicine, a governing body, released a guide—Street Medicine Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic, available for free—providing practical suggestions for street medicine teams. In 2005, fewer than a dozen street medicine programs existed in the world. Today there are more than 100, and the Institute provides consistent support, training, and guidelines to local affiliates.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow street medicine to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to above. Street medicine redirects here. I'm not sure if it's Wikipedia convention to convert an article from one thing to another, such as from a general concept to a company. Perhaps the redirect can be terminated and contents related to concept can go there, and this page can be DELETED. Graywalls (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I copied over the contents to Street Medicine so a sentence or two about the existence of the institute can be mentioned if it is decided that this article should be deleted. Graywalls (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectto street medicine, I think the appropriate content has been merged already. PainProf (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the only one involved in this branch of medical service and it's wildly inappropriate to create a re-direct for every organization to a subject matter article. The hole in the wall "Street Medicine Institute" 501c3 have not sufficiently established a recognition status like Styrofoam, or Kleenex. Graywalls (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From this comment, I suspect you did not read the very significant article in JAMA, a highly reliable source for medical news. That coverage makes clear, the concept was coined by Withers and the Street Medicine Institute was the first, it also describes the critical role he played in founding the initiative. As such its an incredibly plausible search term. I have never seen churnalism in JAMA. Why not just make it easy for readers? Redirects are cheap and there is no rationale for not having one. PainProf (talk) 17:48, 22 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ho Fook's

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

I'm not sure this restaurant is notable. Redirects (first to Werewolves of London and then to Wong Kei) have been challenged. Adam9007 (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, PR, advertisement --Devokewater @ 10:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Werewolves of London (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the restaurant is already mentioned. Here are the sources that verify the connection of Lee Ho Fook's to Werewolves of London:
1. Wooldridge, Max (2002). Rock 'n' Roll London. New York: Macmillan Publishers. p. 38. ISBN 0-312-30442-0. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
  The article notes:
  
  As you pass 15 Gerrard Street you may wish to call in and sample the fare of Lee Ho Fook, the Chinese restaurant that ended up in the lyrics to Warren Zevon's classic 'Werewolves of London'.
2. Self, Will (2001). Feeding Frenzy. London: Viking Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-670-88995-2. Retrieved 2020-08-09.
  The book notes:
  
  I also have a liking for Lee Ho Fook, down at the Wardour Street end, but less for the food than for the fact that it appears in Warren Zevon's song 'Werewolves of London': I saw a werewolf in Lee Ho Fook's/He was eating some beef chow mein ... Aaaaoooh! Werewolves of London' etc. etc.
Cunard (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found it useful when I played a video of "Werewolves of London" and wanted to know if "Lee Ho Fook's" was a real place. (I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, so, if this is not the way to express my vote, please correct me. Having "Lee Ho Fook's" redirect to the song seems a reasonable alternative to me.)ZevFarkas (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to "Werewolves of London". Easy enough to copy-paste a paragraph, and per Cunard's refs above the info is verifiable. Not a notable restaurant besides the song. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Now keep per the fantastic WP:HEY by No Swan So Fine. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:11, 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 05:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was the first Chinese restaurant in the UK to receive a Michelin Star, which should certainly guarantee notability. I have expanded the article with a New York Times review and several other references. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly, ~~weak delete~~[neutral - see below]. First Michelin-starred Chinese restaurant in the UK should indeed make it notable, but we need evidence of some sources. I did my own search and like those above have not found anything more than brief mentions, unfortunately. Maybe someone with access to newspaper archives in the UK can find something else? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added sources for that fact from The Times and The Guardian and reviews from The Times and The New York Times No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These were the sources I had found when I !voted above. The Times is the only one that goes into any depth about it, in a group review of several new restaurants. That's something, but I hoped for more. For the others it's a single line or single paragraph. NYT for example has long done full reviews as well as these [I don't know what to call them... announcements?] that just give the most basic information about a place. It just doesn't seem enough for WP:CORP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the date of the sources must be taken into consideration with regards the paucity of the coverage. Were a restaurant to open today in the same position it would be accompanied by a phalanx of blogs, tweets, and multiple reviews coordinated by a public relations team. Such a restaurant was quite novel in the late 1960s in England, the quasi-anthropological nature of the piece by The Times underlines this. Yet the sustained interest in Lee Ho Fook's demonstrates its notability. To have gained a Michelin star and an entry in the Good Food Guide would be guarantee notability for a restaurant in 2020. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea for having a sliding scale for source coverage based on date as notability has a function independent of simply stating what's important/significant. We need some good coverage to write a solid article. That it's harder to find sources for older restaurants (how about 1660s in England?) doesn't mean we should hold them to a different standard. I am striking my !vote, however, because while the sources found so far do land me in the weak delete camp, it does seem likely that other sources may exist that aren't easily findable online. Not sure, but it's close enough that I'll switch to neutral. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the expansion undertaken by No Swan So Fine, there are now sufficient references from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG after expansion and notable as the first Chinese restaurant in the UK to receive a Michelin star (there are a lot of Chinese restaurants in the UK). Philafrenzy (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cystic, mucinous, and serous neoplasms

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

This is an excessively broad and unhelpful article title. It does not serve a useful purpose to readers, who are actually better off with this article being removed and using a search engine to fine the article they actually want. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a coherent topic or useful as a navigational tool PainProf (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is actually a group of tumors which are usually combined together in a single category in the literature like here. That's why Arcadian created this page. This is not OR. However, given no significant content on the page, deleting it would not do much harm. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That is not the literature, its a clinical code... its like having a page like Headache (NOS), the reason they are created is technical but you couldn't ever have a page write a page about it - it isn't a discrete topic and it doesn't have greater meaning. I think probably they just went through creating indiscriminate pages that are listed in clinical code books. PainProf (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my mistake. Delete. My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 22 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 23:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ductal, lobular, and medullary neoplasms

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

This is an excessively broad and unhelpful article title. It does not serve a useful purpose to readers, who are actually better off with this article being removed and using a search engine to fine the article they actually want. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a coherent topic or useful navigational tool PainProf (talk) 21:26, 20 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. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 11:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HyperRogue

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

Fails WP:GNG. The WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up a total of nine results.

a Metacritic listing ("No score yet, based on 0 Critic Reviews")
"HyperRogue, the non-Euclidean roguelike, is a mind-melting masterpiece", an in-depth piece by Rock, Paper, Shotgun
a listing, also at Rock, Paper, Shotgun
a small preview, "Don't lose your way in non-Euclidean roguelike HyperRogue"
a listing at GameSpot ("We have no news or videos for HyperRogue. Sorry!")
Again GameSpot, ("We have no player reviews for HyperRogue yet. If you've played it, write a review and tell us what you think!")
PocketGamer again, with a listing
a listing at Hardcore Gamer, which links to "Indie Gala Friday Special Bundle For March 13, 2015"
and an empty listing at GameZone

Out of the nine reliable sources, there are two that actually discuss it. Not enough WP:SIGCOV. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know, this seems like a really marginal case. In my searches (books, scholars, sites), I haven't found anything reliable that wasn't already mentioned by OP or that it's in the article. I have removed countless of random blogs and community writer pieces on reliable sites like Gamasutra/HonestGamers from the reception section. That leaves three sources, all of which I'll try to analyze now. The first one is Rock, Paper, Shotgun one at [23]. While the source itself is reliable and the text is in-depth, it doesn't tell much about the game at all, and it's mostly a commentary. Meanwhile, Pocket Gamer's bits about the game at [24] actually seem stronger than RPS piece, spending two paragraphs talking about its gameplay directly. And there is a really great in-depth scholar coverage, co-authored by University of Warsaw's staff at [25]. Overall, it seems like a borderline pass of WP:GNG at best. My proposal is to merge this into a new section at Hyperbolic geometry (preferably called "Hyperbolic geometry in video games") where it would fit nicely per WP:ATD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this is a borderline case thanks to the academic paper's existence. But with only one piece of WP:SIGCOV from critical sources, it's hard to argue that this game made a notable impact. I like to err on the side of having many pieces of SIGCOV, simply because there are plenty of games that easily fulfill the criteria, so as a bar, it isn't particularly high._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm, the problem is that you didn't explain why my merge WP:ATD argument is invalid which is something we should follow per the WP:PRESERVE policy. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirecting it to that article in question may be WP:SURPRISE. Even though I do support adding the references to the mentioned article in the appropriate section._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not a bad argument actually. It actually did a swing for me to delete. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You've omitted a substantial reference, Chapter 44 of Harris, John. (2020). Exploring Roguelike Games. Milton: Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-000-16949-2. OCLC 1164495662. It's also mentioned briefly in Osudin, Daniil; Child, Chris; He, Yang-Hui (2019). "Rendering Non-Euclidean Space in Real-Time Using Spherical and Hyperbolic Trigonometry". Computational Science – ICCS 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing: 543–550. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22750-0_49. ISBN 978-3-030-22750-0. And that's just what I found in a few minutes on Google Books. That custom Google search you used may be too restrictive. (I do agree that the Wikipedia article needs to be heavily reworked, though.) -Apocheir (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are also 20-something hits on Google Scholar, although some are repeats. -Apocheir (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I stand corrected. Thanks Jovanmilic97 and Apocheir, I missed some serious reliable sources. I've withdrawn my nomination. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the nominator has withdrawn the nomination in later commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Northamerica1000, I've withdrawn my nomination, shouldn't the discussion be closed? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: No, because a delete !vote remains existent in the discussion, this cannot be kept as speedy keep/withdrawn. See WP:SKCRIT point #1 for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha! Zxcvbnm, have you seen the new references? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: Yes, I withdraw my delete vote as well due to that and change it to "Keep". You are free to close the discussion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These new sources need review. Academic conference proceedings are not edited or peer reviewed. They're on par with an academic blog for reliability. Second, Kopczyński is both the researcher and the game designer. It's a primary source. Exploring Roguelike Games hasn't even been released yet, so not sure how you'd be citing it. Are any of the other academic sources more than a passing mention? All in all, this needs more scrutiny. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite not being officially released yet, Exploring Roguelike Games is on Google Books. Not sure how that happened. I realize that isn't ideal, since GBooks has a page limit for some books, including this one. But yes, these new sources need to be reviewed before either a decision to keep or a decision to delete can be confidently made. -Apocheir (talk) 22:02, 21 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appavi

AfDs for this article:

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

All of the sources are unreliable. There are no "multiple reliable sources", which are needed for films. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found during search to establish notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 17:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS; all of the sources are blogs or PR/listing services. Bearian (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 15:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found sources.TamilMirchi (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)^[1]^[2][reply]
Comment I, the creator, of the discussion want the article to be kept. It was my mistake for nominating the article for deletion. I did not know that the longest Indian flag was made for this film.TamilMirchi (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nom.~~ Donaldd23 (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have already !voted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have requested a speedy keep. I am the creator of this AFD. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be speedy closed because there are delete votes apart from your nomination,Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These sources covers the film in detail.

^[3]^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamilMirchi (talk • contribs) 04:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep - new sources are good - the article itself has a unique notability. Neutral Fan (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new sources Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later on in the discussion. Also of note is that the nominator has essentially withdrawn their nomination in later comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage presented doesn't seem to extend beyond cast and crew, and the flag record. Some sources look suspect. So, an actual review in an RS would be nice. But there's enough for GNG NEXIST by my reckoning. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discovery of new sources. Azuredivay (talk) 04:04, 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 23:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Flower Public School

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

Fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 11:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 19 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 17:33, 21 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 23:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louay Miled

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

Search shows this article and a ton of self published stuff (i.e. social media), not notability through reliable independent sources Naleksuh (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NKICK since amateur titles are specifically excluded. The coverage I see appears to be routine sports reporting, but I'm not voting yet because many of the references are in Arabic and I don't read it. I will wait to see if others can enlighten me on what those sources say. Papaursa (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said above, he doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers. The references I can read in the article are routine sports reporting and my own search (admittedly in English) didn't find the coverage I believe is necessary to meet WP:GNG. If someone can show specific references that show WP:GNG is met, I'll reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 26 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 23:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samy Sana

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

Search shows this article and a ton of self published stuff (i.e. social media), not notability through reliable independent sources Naleksuh (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's won multiple world championships that are listed at WP:NKICK and is currently ranked in the world top 10 (another criteria for showing notability). Much of the coverage can be considered routine sports reporting, but his accomplishments clearly qualify him as WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He more than passes the notability criteria for a kickboxer, having won the WBC Muaythai and ISKA titles, as well as being ranked in the top ten by Combat Press. I've also added third party sources to the article. GameRCrom (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am with the other people. He has won multiple titles and is ranked in the top 10. There is no reason his page should be deleted. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:09, 25 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. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TESBL

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No reliable sources can be found. Sources in the article are almost all from the article subject's own website. The few others are from a trade publication. No significant coverage. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artilcle Sites Reliable Information WP:GNG and WP:CORP and also article is for the manufacturer who works in united states defense so what we can do is add more information to the article rather than just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg3696 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 19 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) 00:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2013-07 ✗ G11

This guy is the scammer, ask police in uk, all information based on only one website tsbl. He constantly remove all netagive articles about him, we went to the jail for 2 year for stealing money from older lady in London, he cheated many people, me too, he studied IT thats why he is clever ... he put in other websites infos about his company only to make fake traffics. His real name is Gopinath Setivarahalli from Bangalore in India. All infos in wikipedia is a big lie, I was really suprise how easy is to bulit fake profile in wikipedia. Thanks. Bruno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:B172:611D:1:1:949C:4198 (talk) 11:01, 27 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. Since nobody has challenged *Treker's sources in over week, the "ayes" have it Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CraveOnline

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable website; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:WEB / WP:GNG. The references provided, which are mostly archived (including those brought up in AFD 8 years ago), present mere mentions of CraveOnline, not the significant coverage needed to merit a standalone article. Moreover, the site's rebrands "Mandatory" and "Evolve" also lack significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Mandatory (company): It has received some coverage under its former name, notably [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] and [31]. With these reliable sources, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seem blatantly notable based on sources above.★Trekker (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few "articles" that are glorified press releases about a name change and one by "PAIDCONTENT.ORG" doesn't qualify them as notable. So, unless can provide some actual in-depth secondary reliable coverage that's not by guest paid content writers I'm going with delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Superastig and User:*Treker, I would take a closer look at the sources Superastig has provided. As User:Adamant1 notes, many of those are just republished press releases. The first link (econtentmag) stems verbatim from Mandatory's own press release, and the second, fourth, and sixth links are all self-submitted press releases by CraveOnline itself (note the CraveOnline "Corporate Communications" authors at the bottom of all three), so none of those links are independent of the subject. I would also say that the CBS link (republished from PaidContent.org) – a two-paragraph news brief – does not qualify as significant coverage. While the last provided link (Digiday) does qualify as significant coverage, I'm not sure there is enough to meet notability guidelines (and it only mentions "CraveOnline" once). Feel free to take another look. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails SIGCOV and WP:WEB. Before anyone else proffers "reliable" sources, might they be examined first? Ravenswing 23:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found these sources pretty fast from a Google search. I'm sure some of these publications will be deemed unreliable but there is a lot out there about CraveOnline/Mandatory, I doubt the negative publications are press releases.★Trekker (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

09:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its been a couple of days now, I feel like it would be beneficial if someone would evaluate the sources I found. Like I said, I'm sure some of them could be deemed unrelibale or mostly PR but there is info about their controveries as well.★Trekker (talk) 14:29, 21 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 07:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woco Group

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

Non notable company, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 11 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, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✗ R2, 2020-08 move to → Draft:Woco Group

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 12:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sayem Sobhan Anvir

AfDs for this article:

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

Bio of a young businessman who has taken on a senior role in his father’s company. The main claim to notability is receipt of the ‘Commercially Important Person’ award from the government. The coverage all seems pretty thin to me, more promotion than substance. There is no sustained in depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Coverage in the Daily Sun, Kaler Kantho, and banglanews24.com (10 of the 12 cited sources) must be taken with a grain of salt. All are subsidiaries of East West Media Group, itself a subsidiary of Bashundhara Group, of which he is the managing director. The two independent sources barely mention him. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Worldbruce. Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage. Promotional article. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:12, 21 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 07:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subhasganj High School

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

As per WP:NSCHOOL, secondary schools are not assumed to be notable and need to pass WP:GNG, which this one doesn't. The article only contains primary sources and a Google search doesn't obtain any secondary sources of note. Spiderone 07:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the sources in the article are primary, there's no results in Google News about it, and all that comes up in a search is trivial business directory type stuff. So as it currently stands this seems like a pretty clear delete case to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:33, 19 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 07:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love Box (drama)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find anything other than some passing mentions. Look at username, looks like someone from/associated with Bongo BD are creating those for promotional purpose. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

09:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks promotional per nom, but putting that aside, this does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NTV. All references are primary except #3, and I wouldn't say that meets WP:SIGCOV as it doesn't cover the show in depth, just a blurb on the actor working the show. -2pou (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability guidelines. It is also worth noting that all of the page creator's edits are within this type of content, and many of them have been nominated for deletion. It appears to potentially be a single-purpose account. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Donaldd23 (talk) 15:28, 24 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 07:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Sheuly

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find anything other than some passing mentions. Look at username, looks like someone from/associated with Bongo BD are creating those for promotional purpose. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

09:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be passing WP:GNG based on the sources. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think these sources help meet GNG. #1 is simply a set photo (or something similar) with absolutely no reported text other than the title of the post saying what it is. #3 looks like a passing mention simply stating a past TV credit—the piece is actually about an entirely different film being worked on. #2 looks like it is actually decent as a review, but that alone is not enough to meet WP:GNG.-2pou (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's the one review, but unfortunately that's not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, and I was unable to find another one. So, as it currently stands this film isn't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:37, 19 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. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Rogers

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

This page has been nominated for deletion but the nominator has not yet posted the rationale. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles are supposed to be built on sources about the subject, not on sources by them. This article is too much built on sources by Rogers. It in general is par for the course of 2007 and our extremely lax inclusion guidelines at the time. We have since decided that just getting a book published is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inclined to agree with JPL but like to see the rationale before i put down something hard. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if there is a consensus for a delete, can this article be deleted if the nominator User:JesseRafe doesn't add a rationale? (I created this page because a red link was posted to the daily afd log and afd template was placed on the article which can't be removed because it would get reverted by a bot). - hako9 (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also curious to see a rationale. At least one of her books attracted a number of reviews (Real Deal, Publishers Weekly, New York Observer) so she might pass WP:AUTHOR#3. pburka (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Lack of sourced references. Clear spam that has no place here. Breezy Memoir?! MaskedSinger (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete because the sources are not sufficiently reliable. CambridgeGraduate (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, although she wrote a book, the article reads like PR + marketing --Devokewater (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom still hasn't provided any rationale to delete, and, as I commented above, she's the author of at least one notable book. pburka (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Her book was reviewed widely, she's still active--and sought after--as a real estate "expert," and our AfD policy in regard to BLPs has become one where simply being written about in a few secondary sources is enough; why should this one be any different? (And I mean that only somewhat cynically). Caro7200 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I did add a rationale, it's not my fault no one could see it before I went on a Wikibreak, reasons for keeping due to "still not adding a rationale" are silly as can clearly be seen by my lack of contributions since. As others have noted, there's a complete lack of notability aside from writing a non-notable book and having a couple of bylines on various websites, and almost all the sources are primary. JesseRafe (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have struck the delete !vote made by the nominator himself. Nominator's delete vote is implied. - hako9 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Without a rationale we have nothing to rebut: thank you for providing one. Her "non-notable" book received at least three significant reviews in independent reliable sources, so it passes WP:NBOOK. At the very most, this article could be moved to Diary of a Real Estate Rookie and lightly edited to reflect the change in focus. pburka (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reviews found by pburka. Although perhaps technically the best thing would be to create an article for the book and redirect to that, it seems a bit wiki-lawyer-ish to delete an article on an author because her book is the notable thing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:25, 26 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 07:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central Pennsylvania Blood Bank

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

No indication of meeting WP:NCORP. References given are all directory listings. Google not showing any WP:significant coverage. noq (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quite regrettably. No doubt an organization for a good cause, but all I found was routine news coverage and passing mention in books. Open if someone would want to merge and redirect this to an appropriate article such as Alliance for Community Transfusion Services (ACTS). --Dps04 (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and several similar articles). Basically, not directory. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 19 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 04:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skotos

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

A video game company, mostly known for creating one game, Castle Marrach. As notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, it fails WP:NCORP. The good 'ole WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up very little results. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would a merge to RPGnet make sense? BOZ (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it fails WP:NCORP due to only being known for one game. The sourcing is kinda iffy to. I don't think a merge to RPGnet since the only connection is that they are run by the same guy. Plus, it would unbalance the article IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:42, 19 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanouil Farlekas

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. // Timothy :: talk 05:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 05:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have edited it to include more text from the Greek version. I believe it does now. --Antondimak (talk) 07:59, 2 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) 00:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create

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

Salvio

10:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cewbot. I opposed it. What should I have done so you would have detected the opposition? --Antondimak (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antondimak, always start your !vote with an * plus the keyword that bots, scripts and tools will recognize. These are: *'''Delete'''', *'''Speedy Delete'''', *'''Keep''', *'''Speedy Keep'''', *'''Merge'''', *'''Redirect'''', and *'''Draftify'''. If you leave a reply, use *'''Reply''' and if you leave a general comment use *'''Comment''' with the correct indentation. Hope this helps. // Timothy :: talk

Thank you. --Antondimak (talk) 06:36, 19 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 07:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SEMAN

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG; the vast majority of mentions I can find are WP:ROUTINE coverage, there's not much more out there than just what's in the article, which is a single sentence. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source cited contains a lot more than is in our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:15, 3 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, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-10 ✗ R2, 2018-10 move to → Draft:SEMAN

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

Salvio

07:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG; a few trade refs, a self-published web site. Wikipedia is not a directory. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Improve. As it is, the article is indeed too meagre to remain. Best would be to add some "beef" - if that cannot be done then I reluctantly admit it should be deleted. Jan olieslagers (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be quite a lot of sources on SEMAN, certainly not trivial mentions - [32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. Should pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it Fails the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP notability guidelines. Even with the new sources provided in the AfD. Just to break down why they don't work, the first is a law. Which doesn't work for notability because it's a primary source. The second is a glorified fluff piece press release advert that seriously lacks neutrality. Same for the third and forth. The fifth link seems to be dead due to a database error. So that one is a no go. The sixth source is possibly usable for notability, but it's about the release of a product (the same product that every other article about them seems to be about. So, really there should just be an article about the product if all these sources work for notability), and WP:NCORP says product releases are not notable. The 7th is an interview and about "aircraft", not "SEMAN." So, that one doesn't work either. Which, sadly, leaves nothing to make the company notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:55, 19 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rabois

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

Lack comprehensive coverage from secondary sources to establish notability. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article with both good and bad coverage so there is certainly independent content. I can't help but wonder if the deletion of this article would be to the benefit of the subject as it contains content that is far from flattering, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Could you help point us to which one or several of the reference link(s) you think establishing notability? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Salvio

07:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he is often in the news, tied to many prominent affairs in tech in the Silicon Valley and has been important in many big companies. He averages pretty high daily views on the Wiki page: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Keith_Rabois which means there is interest from the general public too. A quick internet search of his name will bring up articles in all major newspapers and media sources, from the New York Times to Fox.Eccekevin (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete it's been two weeks and neither keep voter materialized the sources on him that they claimed existed and all I could find about him was the usual VC fluff piece that always seem to exist for people like him. Like what his prediction for some industry is or what firm he's joining. None of that passes the threshold for notability though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:00, 19 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 07:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Leveen

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The article was created by an WP:SPA account and was full of primary sources and promotional content. After cleaning up the article and doing a WP:BEFORE search, I was unable to find sufficient indications that this person is notable. Normal Op (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Haven't done a super thorough search yet, but I did find [39] in the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Most of the other hits seem to be pieces she's contributed to The Atlantic and Los Angeles Review of Books. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage here isn't super heavy as it would be for other authors, but I found enough to establish notability via reviews and coverage for her books. There's a lot of primary sources out there so it made it hard to find the non-primary stuff, but there's just enough out there to where I would say she'd pass. (I did add some interviews to the article, mostly so that if/when I create articles for the books or if someone wants to flesh out the article, they have some sourcing available.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fair warning to the nominator and all - it looks like Leveen was the focus of some minor controversy due to her protesting a screening of Kindergarten Cop. I didn't mention any of that in the article because as of right now it's something that would be just WP:RECENTISM until it can be shown that it would be of any lasting importance. Since it resulted in a flurry of news posts that quickly died down, I'd wager that it's not really something that would warrant mention. My reason for mentioning it is controversy of any level tends to bring in SPAs and trolls, so fair warning. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was alerted to that on the Talk page. I also made a post on the Talk page describing my recent work on the article. Normal Op (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of multiple notable (i.e. widely reviewed) books, so she passes WP:AUTHOR#3. pburka (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets both GNG and AUTHOR and just a reminder to the Nom that it is often considered bad form to heavily edit an article just before nominating it (just over an hour between your pruning and nomination). I got called out for it once when I first got into AFD. The version that you pruned had 40+ sources and the version you left had only 5. If you consider the article should be deleted and can't be saved just nominate it as is and give your analysis of the sources. You removed 80% of the content before nominating, I don't know if this is considered WP:GAMING the system or if there is a specific policy or guideline that forbids this but it seems rather unfair to those coming to !vote because they have to look back through the history to find the original sources. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I didn't come to the conclusion of "non-notable" until I had finished worked on the article and realized nothing was left. I had not decided that beforehand or would have saved myself the work and gone straight for AfD, but I had to weed through the chaff first. If I had an opinion about the article beforehand and then trimmed the article, you could (correctly) accuse me of gaming. Normal Op (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the sourcing wasn't entirely easy to find. There's a huge amount of primary and SPS sourcing, enough that it took me a good while to find everything that I did. I can see where it would be easy to miss it upon an initial search. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Normal Op, I think removing 80% of the content and nearly 90% of the sources is a little more than simple weeding and I stand by my comment that it is often seen as bad form to do that before nominating. Probably best to have reverted to the original version once you had decided that the person wasn't notable and given your arguments as to why the sources do not show notability rather than removing them and saying that they should be discounted as being primary source. I was in the same case as you so of course I AGF for what you did but I was told that my actions could be seen as gaming the AFD procedure. It takes quite a deal of effort to give a detailed analysis of 40 sources in an AFD nomination but IMHO it's better than just deleting them and giving a blanket dismissal as primary sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: I understand your viewpoint, however it has been my experience that too many "drive-by AfD commenters" just glance at an article, see a bunch of citations in the References section and vote 'Keep' which leads to incorrect 'Keep' decisions. Anyone who is more thorough than a 'drive-by voter' is welcome, and able, to see the version before I did the work. I stand by my edits as appropriate, and I spent over two hours working on this article before I came to my conclusion. That is such a bizarre suggestion that I should undo my own work. I see that others who perhaps know of Leveen's work are working on the article. Don't worry, I'm not going to be butthurt if my decision was wrong and the article is 'kept', and especially not upset if the article gets improved in the process. Happy editing. Normal Op (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of assuming that people who disagree with you are "drive-by voters" and that articles you nominate are "incorrectly kept," you should consider that these editors might be acting in good faith and legitimately disagree with your interpretation of our guidelines. Editing the article to encourage the "correct" outcome is inappropriate. pburka (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pburka: Sure, ignore the part where I had no opinion about the article before I started working on it and didn't even think about AfD until after I'd worked on it for two hours (as evidenced by the edit history). No, it's far more likely that I must have conspired to AfD an article because I obviously hate all dilettante wiki editors and need repeated aggressive schooling on wiki policy. Facepalm . Normal Op (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that when you nominated it you were convinced that it wasn't a notable subject and nominated in good faith but by removing the sources to stop the "drive-by voters" from thinking they are RS is not ideal. What is better is a detailed nomination where you analyse the sources so that you can then ask "drive by voters" to say why they disagree with you. When you removed them you must have had an opinion so you only have to put that opinion in the nomination. You should assume good faith and that the !voters actually have looked at the sources and that their opinion is expressed following this hence the usefulness of your own detailed analysis. Also better to avoid facepalms in an AFD. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is obviously more work to be done to improve this article. But it is do-able! TeriEmbrey (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing the WP:GNG. Needs obvious work but it has passed the basic threshold. Archrogue (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaviyude Osyath

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

A film that does not have reliable sources/reviews. Hence the film is not notable. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the article lacks reliable references but I was wondering whether Netflix acquired the rights of the film according to this source. 1 Abishe (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the !votes numerically favor keeping, no clear cut evidence has been provided of the subject meeting GNG, and the exhaustive analysis of the sources in the article has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shivani Rangole

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, most of the roles are trivial in nature. Fails WP:GNG. The article looks more like a Résumé of the subject. Zoodino (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG as "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and satisfies WP:NACTOR as the topic has had prominent roles in later movies like & Jara Hatke and features in lead roles in the last three TV serials, with the role in the latest ongoing serial, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, especially appreciated due to very accurate portrayal of rural wife of the protagonist. Has had critically acclaimed roles on the Marathi stage, winning couple of Marathi theatre awards. Also was featured prominently in Imtiaz Ali's debut web series "She" with a 2nd season in production, her latest marathi web series featuring in the lead role "Idiot Box" has had favorable reviews with acting of both the leads highly praised in mainstream media. Mayurchanakya (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the below analysis to really understand what WP:GNG is, I think you have wrong idea about the terms independent and significant. Zoodino (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search turns up numerous news references, even in English. Significant roles in notable works are listed, and since most of the roles are in foreign languages, it would be inappropriate to delete this article without a reading of the sources in Marathi by a Marathi speaker. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try to analyse the refs, sometimes it will reveal a Google Search is just not sufficient for establishing notability. Zoodino (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page creator have added everything with the name of the subject available on the Internet as a ref(WP:REFBOMB. Clearly one of the motive to make it look like it passes WP:GNG. But after exhaustive analysis of all the refs, I can say with confidence that the sources with significant coverage are not independent and the independent sources all just mention the subject trivially. Hope this analysis would help other fellow editors to make a more informed decision. [unsigned by Zoodino]

Well i had a understanding that independent sources meant primary sources which are not in anyway affiliated to the topic like self-published blog, social media accounts or a paid piece. You have presented your opinions like "interview, the language of article clearly suggests that it is a pr article" in the analysis for independent sources, such random accusations can be made of any piece on any celebrity in the news. And the sources which you maybe not familiar with, you have randomly tagged as "non-notable" and you have not added the sources which are in marathi, which may hint of systemic bias towards any non-english sources. The sources that you have treated as independent you say have trivial mention, your definition of trivial mention maybe different but i doubt multiple lines on the subject praising their acting and articles on the topic playing the role etc can be treated as trivial. I dont see what was wrong in adding the award winner's list as a reference for mention of the topic receiving the award in the article. I hope the fellow editors will actually go through the references independently and not be biased just because the the above user has created a table filled with his opinions Mayurchanakya (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoodino, your repeated arguments above and desperate "analysis" below make me wonder if you have some kind of personal vendetta against this actor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering that too, personal opinions are being conveniently passed on as "analysis" in the form of a table, so as to bias the opinions of any future editor who may skip actually going through the references personally. Mayurchanakya (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://atozmarathi.com/shivani-rangole-biography-wiki-age-birth-date-husband-boyfriend-family-education-serial-movies/	a non-notable biography website		✘ No
http://www.mymahanagar.com/entertainment/actress-shivani-rangole-play-ramabai-in-mahamanvashi-yashogatha-babasaheb-ambedkar-serial/126053/	personal interview of the subject		✘ No
https://www.esakal.com/womens-corner/article-shivani-rangole-mother-friend-285376	again interview		✘ No
https://www.biographia.co.in/shivani-rangole/	a non-notable biography website		✘ No
https://marathimovieworld.com/interviews/shivani-rangole-actress.php	interview, the language of article clearly suggests that it is a pr article		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/marathi/movie-details/chintoo-2-khajinyachi-chittarkatha/movieshow/62536740.cms	~	not even a single mention	✘ No
https://marathicineyug.com/news/latest-news/5137-zee-natya-gaurav-awards-2018-winners-list-photos		trivial mention (name only), with hundreds of other winners of non-notable award	✘ No
https://divyamarathi.bhaskar.com/news/BOL-MB-IFTM-marathi-celebs-attend-sanskruti-kala-darpan-awards-2018-5892842-PHO.html		trivial mention (name only), with hundreds of other winners of non-notable award	✘ No
https://www.thequint.com/entertainment/hot-on-web/review-netflixs-she-web-series-works-in-parts-but-not-on-the-whole		trivial mention (single statement), article is about the series	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/marathi/movies/news/Sujay-Dahakes-sci-fi-romance-with-Phuntroo/articleshow/50931179.cms	~	trivial mention with other cast	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/marathi/movie-reviews/-jara-hatke/movie-review/53362610.cms	~	again article is about the film	✘ No
https://marathistars.com/tv-serial/shejari-shejari-pakke-shejari-zee-marathi-serial-cast-story-photos/	~	again article is about the serial	✘ No
https://www.loksatta.com/manoranjan-news/article-about-bun-maska-serial-of-zee-yuva-1485572/		trivial mention	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/marathi/shivani-rangole-to-play-ramabai/articleshow/69402905.cms		~ a few lines about the role	? Unknown
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/marathi/shivani-rangole-to-play-ramabai/articleshow/69402905.cms	~	trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/she-review-women-deserve-better-than-this-netflix-series-two-stars-out-of-five-2198068		trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/one-love-story-5-different-genres-mx-exclusive-idiot-box-is-one-web-series-that-you-must-switch-on-this-friday20200721162919/	~	trivial mention	✘ No
https://punemirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/unwind/watch-a-marathi-play/articleshow/61798650.cms		trivial mention	✘ 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}}.

Keep. Notability established. Leave targeted feedback for remediation of quality issues. Ktin (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, notability is established. Article however reads poorly and needs improvement. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially everything that passes as an interview of a media personality -- in any country -- is PR written and intended as PR., and an attempt to use this as the basis for an editor article is an attempt to turn WP into a PR vehicle. A safer rough criterion is whether there is any reason for anything other than PR to be written, and --since I do not know the films--if she has never appeared in a major role, there's no reason to think her notable . DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of a good redirection target (She (TV series) maybe?; article has views, subject is listed under Cast). A few marginal roles in a marginal (regional) industry. Not seeing a pass of NACTOR, nor GNG; it's WP:TOOSOON. Ping me with your best WP:THREE if you feel strongly that I am in error. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator - no point splitting the discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finn Mikkelsen. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parakev Arsenov

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

Notability concerns. The only reference is the World Curling Federation database, and I can't find any coverage of this person. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NCURLING: "...A curler is presumed notable if he or she ... 2) Has participated at the World Curling Championships..." Parakev Arsenov has participated at the 2002 World Wheelchair Curling Championship. Yes, I can't found other sources for today. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 05:50, 19 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 wrong venue. Concerns about a deleted or redirected article should be made at deletion review, not at AfD, so closing. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 05:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TLC Travel

AfDs for this article:

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

An August 2019 AfD was closed with a consensus to merge. The article at that point only had one cite. A new fully cited article was added in May 2020 as noted at Talk:West Yorkshire Metro#TLC Travel. Since then the redirect has been reinstated and reverted a couple of times. Best way to resolve is to conduct a fresh AfD. At this point I am not expressing an opinion, just initiating the process. Bretieni (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Deb: CSD A7: No credible indication of importance; CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nexxus Studios

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, created by an editor with a clear conflict of interest and repeatedly submitted through AfC until it was eventually rejected. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this clearly isn't notable. The COI editor should have just respected the rejections of the AfC about it. I'm tempted to vote salt also so it isn't recreated. Since the COI editor clearly doesn't have any respect for the process and will probably try creating it again. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears to have been already deleted. --Devokewater (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the initial editor tried to dodge the AfD by moving the article to userspace, it was moved back by another editor, and then deleted by Deb. The initial editor has gone and started a new draft at User:Pulak Chakraborty/Nexxus studios. In light of all this, I agree with the call to salt the page. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can someone close this since the article has been deleted? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:48, 21 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 07:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, the lone example of significant coverage in a reliable source is [40] (and that's being fairly charitable). I wasn't able to find anything else online. Previously declined at AfC. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only in-depth source I could find was this, which calls itself a review but is unsigned and reads as non-independent pure puffery. Narky Blert (talk) 14:06, 22 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 07:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Jerusalem, San Joaquin County, California

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

Not even GNIS calls this a community. There is an elementary school of that name and a small airport. No indication anywhere that there was a community. Airport has a wiki article; elementary school doesn't appear to meet notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seems to just be a school. So it might as well be deleted. Since it clearly fails GEOLAND or whatever the guideline about populated places is. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete The GNIS spot is the airport; it and the surrounding area seem to have picked up their names from the school, but nobody seems to claim it as a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to New Jerusalem Airport. As a locality, this is a good compromise. We can mention the school in the airport article, the only thing really worth merging. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:07, 21 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 07:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Robinson (politician)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL as a councillor for Newham and does not seem to meet WP:BASIC. She most recently was an official on Keir Starmer's Labour leadership campaign (see [41]), but I'm not seeing the sustained coverage necessary for BASIC/GNG. Not to be confused with Ellie Robinson (swimmer). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local level politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was A7 deleted by admin User:Cryptic, shortly after nomination here (non-admin closure) - hako9 (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Msinsi Holdings

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. There is no WP:SIGCOV of this entity. It is mentioned in promotional articles and database style listing sites. The sources in the article are from the company website or are promotional. // Timothy :: talk 03:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Purely promotional. A a s i m 03:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I am at it, tagging with G11. A a s i m 03:48, 19 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 07:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MDC 3

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

Does not satisfy entertainment notability or general notability. Competing (in the junior division) on a show does not in itself count as ipso facto notability.

Without the names of the members of the group, inadequate context. That could be remedied, but the group would still not be notable.

Already in draft space, because created in article space and moved to draft space, so cannot be moved to draft space again, and should be deleted. (PROD was applied, and was validly removed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Lacks context to identify subject. A a s i m 04:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As the overall winner of World of Dance (season 4) this title should redirect there if they are not notable enough for their own article. ~ GB fan 09:57, 19 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 07:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SMA Negeri 1 Banjar Agung

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

Article about a secondary school that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORG). Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic WP:ROUTINE coverage. // Timothy :: talk 02:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While people are happy of their schools, I do not think this serves anything but to show that the school exists. Completely lacks notability. A a s i m 05:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 07:15, 19 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) 12:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdynews

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

WP:PROMO for a startup that fails WP:NCORP. [42] is the best I could do by way of coverage, and it looks like a press release. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Promotional. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:42, 19 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) 05:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dream Creatures in Magi-Nation (GBC)

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

Apparently this was made in 2011 but was overlooked until recently. It appears to be pure Wikia style fan-cruft that fails GNG and is totally unreferenced. In fact the original author admitted on the talk page that it was meant to be a dumping ground for fan content rather than an actual article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would say this is nothing but a game guide, but there's not even enough content here to even be that. Its nothing but an un-cited list of non-notable fictional creatures from a fairly minor video game. Fails WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The cruftiest cruft. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 07:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just delete. The quicker the better. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely unencyclopedic fan page - i.e. WP:NOTWIKIA. Naleksuh (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial gamecruft. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unhelpful fancruft. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails LISTN, gamecruft. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Edward Thomas (locomotive)#In fiction. A fictional character being based on something from the real world does not contribute to meeting any notabililty threshold I am aware of. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sam

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

Non-notable fictional character. Article is currently uncited, and I'm not finding any real coverage in reliable sources, just wikis, blogs, and sales sites. Google books just brings up the primary source materials themselves. I'm amazed at the quantity of Thomas the Tank Engine cruft there is. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:V and WP:NFICTION, as well as WP:GNG. I guess it is time to prune the Thomas tTE cruft to reasonable level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually based on a real locomotive (see here, for example), and so the worst case would be merger into the article about that per WP:ATD. The nomination says nothing about this and so I doubt that the article was read or understood. What we've got here is the usual WP:CRUFTCRUFT per WP:IDONTLIKEIT; WP:IGNORINGATD; WP:RUBBISH; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What we have here is a clear WP:GNG failure, even that source, while reliable, only gives Peter Sam a sentence. Andrew, keep !votes without demonstrating why the subject passes GNG is slightly disruptive. If you can find multiple reliable sources that give substantial coverage, then there's a very good case for keeping. I tried to do that and failed, maybe you'll have better luck than me. Hog Farm _Bacon 13:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: - Further, what are we going to merge? The entire content of the article is uncited, and merging uncited content is generally frowned up. Additionally, there are issues that the fictional biography of Peter Sam would be extremely undue at Edward Thomas (locomotive). The relevant sentence, "The character Peter Sam in The Railway Series books by the Rev. W. Awdry is based on Edward Thomas.", is already at the article, and since there's no citation to merge, there's nothing to merge. A redirect there would be acceptable, I guess, since this does seem to be the primary topic for Peter Sam, but I strongly oppose any merger, and I've seen no evidence that this meets the stand-alone notability guidelines. I have yet to be disproved on that. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edward Thomas (locomotive)#In fiction, alright, it's based of something in the real world. Quite a few fictional things are, does not make them notable. Coverage dug up is just a passing mention, and the sentence at the target is all that is needed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edward Thomas (locomotive)#In fiction. Merging is unnecessary as there is not a single piece of content currently in the article that is actually cited to a source. The one piece of information brought up in a source in this AFD, that this fictional train was based off of the Edward Thomas, is already included in the target article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ 12:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hits (TV channel)

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

The unreferenced article does not meet WP:GNG. WP:NTELEVISION states "Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable." but a presumption is not a guarantee of notability. In this case, the station produces no original content and has not received WP:SIGCOV directly and in detail. WP:NTV states "A television or radio station's article should not contain a comprehensive listing of the station's entire broadcast schedule." which describes almost the entire content of this article. Parent organization does not have an article, may not meet WP:N, so there is no target for a merge. Rewind networks has been deleted twice due to copyright issues [43]. This article has also been deleted before, see notes on User talk:Sanusis // Timothy :: talk 02:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even for TV channel standards, it fails notability guidelines. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A week has passed, and I'm the only one who has !voted. Should I submit an RfC or wait dor somebody else to input to the discussion? Foxnpichu (talk) 11:34, 27 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hits Movies

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

The unreferenced article does not meet WP:GNG. WP:NTELEVISION states "Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable." but a presumption is not a guarantee of notability. In this case, the station produces no original content and has not received WP:SIGCOV directly and in detail. Parent organization does not have an article, may not meet WP:N, so there is no target for a merge. Rewind networks has been deleted twice due to copyright issues [44]. // Timothy :: talk 02:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:03, 19 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 07:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rent My Wedding

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

This organization fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. After removing all the non-RS citations and the advertising from the article, I checked for articles about this organization and couldn't find anything to add to it. Not notable. Normal Op (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE Added significance of company as first to offer mail order rental service, and largest online event rental company in U.S. Please see edits and additional sources cited in article. --KubinML20 (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC) — KubinML20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: Thanks for remarking that you are the one who made the IP edit. I removed the claim of "largest online event rental" because the source was an interview with the company CEO (primary source) and was published on a "loans" website (not qualified to make that claim). The other two citations are books with no online content to verify if the authors made the claim in them that the company was "first to offer mail order rental service" or whether they were qualified to make that claim. At any rate, neither claim alone, nor both together, would make the company notable. Normal Op (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm really unsure how this would pass WP:NORG. It seems like a successful small business, same as any other sucessfull small business. A quick Google has most of the top hits being tied to the company's social media presence, so I'm not seeing a ton of coverage. EverybodyEdits (talk) 22:11, 22 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. Cleanup needed, though. Tone 07:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and environmentalism

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

This article is someone's personal essay and violates WP:Original research and WP:ACTIVISM. The sources are not reliable sources. The bibliography is someone's dump of every book they've ever read... ever. It either needs deleting or WP:TNT. Normal Op (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's clearly a topic here - a number of cited sources on this specific topic - and the article is not beyond cleanup. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a reasonably well-discussed cross-section of reliably reported views on this topic. BD2412 T 05:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The bibliography demonstrates that the topic is quite notable. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our policies WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. WP:TNT is not a policy; it is disruption. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The presence of a lengthy bibliography where not a single book is referenced in the article, means nothing. I had already checked the edit history and the majority of those books were put in the article all in two dumps: [45] [46]. Like I said, a "dump" of a list of every single book someone ever read. It doesn't mean they are relevant to the topic. Normal Op (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:GENREF which explains that "A general reference is a citation that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They are usually found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. They may also be listed in more developed articles as a supplement to inline citations." A bibliography is a collection of such general references and so is quite reasonable and respectable. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jewish environmentalism is a growing field with a growing academic literature to match. See: <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=%22jewish+environmentalism%22&btnG=>. 216.164.60.237 (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC) IP editor 216.164.60.237 19 August 2020 (talk) — 216.164.60.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: This appears to be a propaganda article. Certainly, there are many Jews who are passionate about environmental protection. But there isn't a correlation between traditional Judaism and environmentalism. Yes, Judaism advocates against waste but environmental destruction for a cause is permitted in halakha.--Cts499m (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a notable topic, the link between Judaism and Environmentalism has been subject to large amounts of coverage. The article is crap, but that's a fixable problem. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/SHOWBITZ/article14961409.ece

[2] ttps://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-cinemaplus/bitten-by-the-acting-bug/article1999906.ece

[3] ttps://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/tamil/2009/dec/24/appavi-part-one-of-a-trilogy-115700.html

[4] ttps://www.rediff.com/movies/report/south-tamil-look-at-appavi/20090917.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]