Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 September	2 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 20:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The God of Wealth

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

Non notable film, no independent reviews found in a WP:BEFORE. All that was found were articles talking about it's release at New Year's, other wikis, and film database sites. Seems to fail WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - since the film was released around 9 months ago, reviews should exist by now if they were ever going to exist; fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 07:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - LATEST To Donaldd23 (talk · contribs) and Spiderone (talk · contribs), the latest version add major news reports from local Chinese-language website Sin Chew Daily, Kwong Wah and China Press. Also added 1 review by Kakimuvee. Pass notability and review check. Should be speedy keep. User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM)
Delete The problem is we do not have any independent RS to review the film. Fails WP:NFILM --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 14:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Mamushir (talk · contribs) You can see the latest, Kakimuvee is an independent RS who reviews the film. User:LoveFromBJM

Comment You need 2 reviews to pass WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added one more review source User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM) 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep Clearly notable film, another Fehler by the nominator.† Encyclopædius 09:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Considering this is a Chinese-language film from Malaysia, I'd say finding one good full-length review is pretty good, plus a bunch of pre-release publicity pieces in China Press and others. It looks like this was a mainstream national release in a language that we don't speak, and I think it satisfies the spirit of NFILM. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- Even though the second review is very brief, everything put together there might be about enough content and valid refs to scrape through WP:NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by Spiderone, movie fails to satisfy WP:NFILM. Celestina007 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is enough coverage that has now been referenced in the article including two reviews to show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The film has two reviews + coverage about filming and release. As a whole it is enough to pass WP:NFILM. TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the small amount of participation the consensus is perfectly clear. The "keep" reasons don't relate to any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. ("No indication that it doesn’t pass": see WP:BURDEN; "It’s not bothering you, is it?": see WP:HARMLESS; "if it doesn’t ... seem necessary": see WP:ITSIMPORTANT; "if it doesn’t get expanded": nobody has suggested that the article should be deleted because it's not big enough.) JBW (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey League of Conservation Voters

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

No indication that this local branch of the League of Conservation Voters passes WP:NORG in its own right, and I don't think a merge or redirect to League of Conservation Voters is plausible. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that it doesn’t pass it either. It’s not bothering you, is it? Let it stay for a few weeks and if it doesn’t get expanded or seem necessary then we can re consider. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the article reads as a way to promote LCV's endorsements in New Jersey, and there's no sign of independent coverage of that state's organization. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mehadrin Dairy Corporation

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

Promotional piece for an organization that fails to satisfy WP:ORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Bogus claims of notability are quite spurious. A WP:BEFORE search shows me hits in user generated/primary sources all of which aren’t independent of the organization hence can’t be considered reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Can you please be more specific about the issues? Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is some Kosher Today coverage of an ice cream marketing rivalry between this and another company: (2014), (2017). I am unconvinced that this is enough to establish WP:NCORP notability for this firm, however. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet GNG and NCORP. There is not direct and indepth IS SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 02:43, 10 October 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⁺⁺ 14:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective references. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 21:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Safa

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

Non notable actress who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her hence fails to satisfy GNG. She fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR. A before search mostly links me to her social media accounts. Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant role in notable films. Fails WP:NACTOR ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 14:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable, in-depth coverage of Safa. I even tried searching what seems to be Safa's farsi name (ایمان صفا) but couldn't come up with anything that looked legit through that either. Doesn't meet any part of WP:NACTOR. Samsmachado (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons Spudlace (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Station, California

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

Not surprisingly, Lorenzo Station appears to be a railroad station. Durham calls it a locality on the Southern Pacific RR. Not a community and no other indication of notability. Glendoremus (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability for the locale is established.TH1980 (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Halvern, California

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

Durham calls it a locality on the Southern Pacific Railroad. I see a couple references to a railroad station of that name but nothing that indicates a community. Does not appear to meet basic notability guidelines. Glendoremus (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like in the previous article, no notability for this place is established.TH1980 (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Chaudhary

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

Fails Wikipidea's notability guidelines possibly a coiBenin antidota (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Benin antidota (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - noting for participants that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaurav Chaudhary (which resulted in a consensus to delete) concerned a different individual. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaurav Chaudhary (2nd nomination) did concern this individual and resulted in a no consensus outcome. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO due to the subject accruing significant, sustained coverage in WP:RS. Coverage includes Chaudhary and his channel (Technical Guruji) being cited in a 2017 article by the head of YouTube India as an example of Hindi-language YouTube channels in India, and recent articles about Chaudhary being published in India Times,The Hindustan Times, and in Forbes India (written by Forbes staff, not a contributor), the latter of which listed Chaudhary as being one of Forbes India's 30 under 30. Many more sources can be found online (by searching for Chaudhary or Technical Guruji), strongly implying the notability of this inidivudal. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per rationale by SamHolt6. I can see subject discussed in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per arguments above. Balle010 (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG. The subject is notable. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above sources are notable Spudlace (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three Cs (public health)

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

The slogan of a public health awareness campaign. This is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I think its too much detail for a merge to a COVID in Japan article (it is mentioned already at COVID-19 pandemic in Japan), and too ambiguous for a redirect. But if others feel this is appropriate they can propose a target. // Timothy :: talk 22:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. Doesn't seem notable on its own, but some useful info about the government's response. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings, you replied while I was ce my nom so you might not have seen this, but what material would you merge that isn't already there? // Timothy :: talk 22:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the background section? Could just be redirected there if it turns out there's not that much to merge. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as aboveBalle010 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Japan - It could certainly be somewhat of value to that page. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. – Joe (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aghamirzai

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

Article does not meet notability requirements. I can't verify the sole source exists. This is not current listed at Tribe Judaki and the sources there were no help. BEFORE showed nothing. Since nothing can be sourced / verified, I don't think a merge or redirect is appropriate. // Timothy :: talk 22:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per research in nom. Balle010 (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. – Joe (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haidarvand

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

Article does not meet notability requirements. Sole source is to another Wikiarticle with a single ref that I can't verify. This is not current listed at Tribe Judaki and the sources there were no help. BEFORE showed nothing. Since nothing can be sourced / verified, I don't think a merge or redirect is appropriate. // Timothy :: talk 22:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per research in nom. Balle010 (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Communists USA

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

I find no evidence that this party has attracted any note in independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. Most of the sources in the article are affiliated. One source, an article in The [Vermont] Eagle, is independent and presumably reliable, but it mentions the party only in passing while discussing a candidate belonging to it. My own online search turns up nothing that helps: social media, blogs, and material presented by the party itself or its members. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Google News turns up fewer than 10 matches after I excluded dozens of hits from one blog. These are possibly independent reliable sources. But they're all passing mentions, mostly just to mention a particular person's affiliation. Largoplazo (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the party is not that well known. However they are active, have an offline presence and participate in the international communist movement. They field candidates for public office. What else does a party need to do to be noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:25, 1 October 2020 (talk • contribs) vjr300 (UTC)

See the information page on notability, particularly the general notability guidelines. Wikipedia's use of the term "notable" is peculiar: it isn't about our own assessment of whether a topic is noteworthy, but whether pertinent independent and reliable sources have demonstrated their own sense that it is through coverage, recognition, etc. Largoplazo (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that any independent articles exist is reason enough to not delete this article. There is no denying that the party exists. At worst, it would make sense to mark it a stub of some kind, but it seems unreasonable to suggest deletion because they are small. kevinkapon (talk) 8:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kevinkapon: My deletion nomination mentions neither its size (which, indeed, is irrelevant to qualifying for inclusion) nor doubt as to its existence (though mere existence doesn't suffice to qualify a subject for inclusion). As I said, the issue is that I don't believe the party meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. Largoplazo (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources in the article do not meet RS, IS, showing SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing that meets RS, IS, showing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that, besides all the practical arguments, the party also fulfills the formal wikipedia rules on general notabillity:

"Significant coverage": The congressional candidacy has greatly increased attention to both the party and the candidate. The party is also mentioned in some dept in the Epoch Times. I will add more sources to the article to reflect this.

"Reliable": Both the Vermont Eagle, and the Epoch Times, and the different mentions of support from the international communist community should be considered as reliable sources.

"Independent": See "Significant coverage", I agree that previously the party did not generate alot of attention, however this has changed recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13:02, 3 October 2020‎ (talk • contribs) Vjr300 (UTC)

If you want to convince people who aren't finding such coverage that such coverage exists, you'll need to identify it. As I already noted, nearly all the mentions in the sources that might be considered both independent and reliable are exactly that, mentions, not significant coverage. For example, "The Party of Communists USA (PCUSA) is fielding a candidate for Vermont's at-large congressional district in 2020, ..."(Vermont Eagle) followed by 14 or so paragraphs about the candidate with no further mention of the party is a mention in passing, not significant coverage, of the party. The Epoch Times article you cited in the article is better, with three paragraphs, but the general topic is a list of socialist parties in the US, and it's just one of a dozen listed. And, even then, that's only one source. Largoplazo (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not establish organizational notability. This article has been created in both draft space and article space. I am wary of articles that are created in both draft space and article space. The reason for doing this is too often to make it impossible to move a questionable article into draft space and so force an AFD. The originator has provided no alternative to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: articles shouldn't be moved to draft space on account of a lack of notability. Draftifying is for the purpose of keeping the content of a drafted article in place so it can be improved. But articles can't be improved into notability, as a notability finding is based on factors outside Wikipedia. Therefore, it's unfair to give an article's creator the false hope that working further on the article will overcome notability-based objection. Largoplazo (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL, WP:SOAP, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL - allegedly, a very small cadre that broke away from a very minor party. We are not a soap box nor Ballotpedia, and in 2020, everybody know that. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per Prax and Joe, deleting this version as the work of a cross-wiki hoaxer. If an actual editor wants to create a good-faith version with proper sourcing, it should not be G4'd. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abajan

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

Movie doesn’t seem to satisfy WP:NFILM. A before search did show me this but that is very much insufficient. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like significant coverage under a different spelling "Abba Jaan". There are 20 critical reviews linked at IMdB [[1]]. (I'm not using IMdB as an actual citation...just linking to other citations (mostly in Persian)). Donaldd23 (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with note in article about different spelling. Balle010 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per g5, account is globally locked as a prolific cross-wiki hoaxer. Praxidicae (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. Maybe we should have an article on this film, but this isn't it. – Joe (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azibo Nosology

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MEDRS. Tagged as WP:COI. Apart from publications by the author of this work, references are scant. None of them even come close to meeting WP:MEDRS. Since the article is about a method to classify, even postulate pathologies, they should. It positively reeks of pseudoscientific psychobabble, so WP:FRINGE, to boot. Kleuske (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K. Sivarajan

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of him. A before search links me to websites where individuals may upload their work. Furthermore the sources used in the article are all unreliable which includes the usage of YouTube as a “reliable source” Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources. Balle010 (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete per WP:A1 might apply here. There is not enough information in the article that allows me to pinpoint who this "K. Sivarajan" is and what he has done. Surprisingly there are many "K. Sivarajan" out there, for many different flavors of this "K", and I'm not willing to put more effort in trying to find which one we are talking about, and which works actually belong to the subject of this article [2] [3] [4]. This difficulty also indicates lack of notability, so if speedy is contested, I'm still voting delete for not meeting WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 13:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking speedy for now. Maybe Srarunvishnu can help fixing the difficulties we are having. Remember that sources do not need to be in english. Having the subject's name in hindi would also help. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 15:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence he meets WP:NACADEMICS or WP:BIO. Article was apparently written by a family member, judging by this edit. All I can find about him online is what's in the two sources cited, one of which is primary, the other a YouTube video of his farewell honours. It's also unclear what's meant by "Dr Ambedkar fellowship 1997", since the only fellowship I can find by that name began in 2013: [5]. Captain Calm (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I couldn't find that award, either. Idk if it began in 2013, though. I had found that Neelam Jain got an award with the same name in 1996. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 15:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basic BLP and WP:V problems here that come even before notability concerns. Dubious unsourced claims to several awards of unknown origin. The claim to have written 41 books also fails verification. Just about every bit of information given in this article looks suspect. I agree that based on this edit there are likely WP:COI issues here as well. In any case, I am not seeing anything to show satisfying either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. – Joe (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Younes

(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 fails WP:GNG. Furthermore I can’t observe any criterion from WP:DIRECTOR satisfied Celestina007 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacking coverage to show notability. Balle010 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person. About sources: ref1 like IMDB, can't consider as reliable source, and ref2/3 talking about anther topic and Younes mentioned on it. Also, I can't found Arabic reliable sources about him --Alaa :)..! 09:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:RFOREIGN and ambiguity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

江南

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

No-one is going to search for this Chinese phrase in English Wikipedia, and no articles link to it. Bazonka (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bazonka (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a quite a few dab pages in Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. – Uanfala (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision for this one is to Delete, then I'll nominate most of those too. Maybe not the single character ones, but certainly all of the others. Bazonka (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar pages have been discussed at AfD in the past (some have resulted in no consensus: in 2010, 2013, others in keep: in 2011, yet others presumably in delete, but I can't track them). Because a string of characters can be a suitable WP:RLOTE redirect to several topics (often because of differences between the Chinese and Japanese readings), discussions of such redirects at RfD have often resulted in disambiguation (examples from 2015 and 2017). – Uanfala (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just skimmed through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disambiguations/archive which goes back to 2008, and the only CJK disambiguation pages I can find that resulted in delete are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ニサ (it was a "pronunciation key", so different situation) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/失楽園 (not actually ambiguous, now a redirect). All others (義安, 高田駅, 火車, 平安, and the related Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 15#Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles) were kept. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons in nom. I don't think it makes sense to have this in English Wiki. Balle010 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The name of a topic in its native language is always a useful search term per WP:RFOREIGN. When that term is ambiguous, the solution is to disambiguate. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force for more information. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For editors to get an idea how popular this page is, this article was accessed 53 times in the last 30 days on EN, 75 times in ZH (note that ZH has a primary topic assumption, the non-disbim page has 3617 views) , and 1682 times on JA. Jumpytoo Talk 00:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jiangnan (disambiguation) links to it. A link could also be added to the hatnote for Jiangnan with a {{for}} template. An example of similar use is the link to Köln (disambiguation) in the hatnote on Cologne. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad (OpenGL)

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

Exists, but no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Balle010 (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep for now. It may be more obvious later whether it meets WP:NEVENT. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balrampur gang rape

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article may violate the don't rush to create articles part of WP:NEVENT, but this second fatal gang rape in Uttar Pradesh in recent days is generating public outcry in its own right,[6] on top of national outrage over the first rape. It's too early to tell whether it should get a stand-alone article. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, this article is way too soon as to whether this is/will become wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not remove it now, help you improve and I have created this article with reliable source that is not essay. Taukeerppw (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is not that it an essay or that it lacks reliable sources. The concern is whether the crime has WP:LASTING effects and interest beyond the news cycle, making it more than just a breaking news story. The Balrampur gang rape sits in the shadow of the Hathras gang rape. It is too soon to tell if this second rape will get lasting attention in its own right. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notify the creator to expand it not delete so soon.Heba Aisha (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is no way to tell if this will have WP:LASTING effects, but given the outcry as a result of the event it seems to have a good chance of doing so. As so, I reckon it should be kept for now. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per explanation by Devonian Wombat ~ Amkgp 💬 19:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Devonian Wombat and WP:RAPID.Added references CNN ,BBC and The Times of India passes WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragonlance creatures

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

Overly in-depth plot information that fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG. This information belongs on Fandom. Dragonlance#Setting at best needs a paragraph or two on the topic per WP:WAF, but I don't see anything currently worth merging. TTN (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Light Merge to Dragonlance#World - Entirely in-universe plot summary, almost completely referenced to primary sources. The one secondary source is only being used to support the statement that "The dragons of Dragonlance appear much as their counterparts in other Dungeons & Dragons worlds", which is not much to establish notability for this list. Searching for additional sources discussing the overall concept of creatures or races specific to Dragonlance is not turning up much in reliable, secondary sources that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. The main article on the setting does already briefly cover some of the races/creatures unique to Dragonlance (i.e. Draconians, Kender, etc.), but if someone wanted to expand it slightly with some of the material here, that would probably be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. List of mostly non-notable characters. The ones with articles can be put in a See also at Dragonlance. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources added to the article, or at worst Merge to Dragonlance#World as per above, per WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing multiple fundamental policies. Articles are WP:NOT#PLOT details that have been WP:SYNTHesized into an article by editorial observation. Dragonlance#World would be an appropriate place to cover a summary of any creatures that are highly significant to the fiction, and I would accept a summary and merge if it helps produce a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mostly non-notable characters that don't pass the WP:GNG. Some of these have notable articles and agree with some editors that we could add these see also in the main Dragonlance article. Jontesta (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a massive list of mostly non-notable characters, sourced essentially exclusively to primary sources, that fails WP:LISTN and WP:PLOT. I am not seeing anything of value to merge, and the article title is not a plausible redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fancruft, WP:NOTPLOT // Timothy :: talk 02:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no recovering this article, it is the fancruftiest of Wikia-tier fancruft and belongs in a game guide._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to some generic list of D&D creatures which will likely survive longer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Piotrus, the article now contains some secondary source commentary on intelligent species/races in Dragonlance. In my opinion that would not readily fit to either of the two (?) D&D monster summary articles, because those don't deal specifically with the "intelligent" species. If there was a merge and/or redirect, Dragonlance or even Dungeons & Dragons controversies would fit better, or maybe Dungeons & Dragons races, which, wouldn't you know, was deleted without ever finding or considering the secondary source used here. Daranios (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: This is good expansion, but I am not convinced we need this big fancrufty list that follows. The content you have added is perhaps the first serious treatment of the topic (with reliable sources), but it is brief enough that it can be merged to the main article about this ficitonal setting. We don't need a list of fancruft about (random pick from the middle of the article) 'Aghar Dwarves (Gully Dwarves)' and so on. What reliable source discusses them? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for explaining.

First, if that is your opinion, and if you believe in policies like WP:ATD, wouldn't that mean to change the vote from delete to merge?

Second, thanks for suggesting the example of 'Aghar Dwarves (Gully Dwarves)'. These are indeed treated in secondary (scholarly) sources [7], [8] (a little), [9]/[10]; this review collection also characterizes them. It's not a lot, but just the coverage in secondary sources that makes sense within a list rather than a standalone article!

So I think this topic is still underestimated because the WP:BEFORE search is so tedious if one takes the individual entries into account. What do you think? Daranios (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HAve you actually read any of those sources? This, for example, is just a one sentence mention in passing. Same for [11]. [12] is just a copy of one of those article. While I have objection to the merge of the few sentences you added earlier, those new sources about 'races' are just mention in passing, neither is notabe, and neither seems to focus on the list of Dragonlance races as a set worth of analyzing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Piotrus, did you mean, that you have no objections to merging the few earlier sentences? (I have added one more detail from another RS since.) If so, why do you still officially object by voting "delete"?

I have read the corresponding sections of the sources. If you look again, I did not propose that these are about Dragonlance races as a whole. They are about the one example that you suggested. I also don't suggest they are enough for a stand-alone article on gully dwarves. But they are enough to write a short section about them in a list, based on secondary sources. That's one purpose of lists, right? (I also was aware that the two different sources by Garthoff you critized are, in that section, copies of one another; that's why I've marked them with a "/". Sorry that that wasn't clearer.) Daranios (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Dragonlance as per Rorshacma and BOZ. There are two secondary source in the article, and I've not seen any secondary source to make the topic overall notable. On the other hand the topic and a number of individual to entries are treated in some form in secondary source. So a short form of the current content should be preserved so that it can be made into something worthwhile with these source.
Keep and possible rename, or in the worst case merge: The article currently has a disproportionately large amount of plot-summary and primary sourced content. But the topic, intelligent species in Dragonlance, is treated in at least one secondary source, Race and Popular Fantasy Literature: Habits of Whiteness, directly and in some detail. There are also a number of secondary sources about the individual entries, and this article is and has been a merge target for a number of articles with a coverage threshold below a separate article, like Draconian, or the currently discussed Kender (Dragonlance). Lastly, a number of the listed entries have related articles, another reason for a list to exist. That together in my opinion makes the article worth keeping, though I am not sure if "creatures" is the best description. Even if this is not seen as meeting WP:LISTN, there are now parts worth preserving. Daranios (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of secondary sources I've found so far: Overall topic: [13], [14]; Dragons: [15], [16], [17] Draconians: [18], [19]; Kender [20]; Elves: [21] (very short but with analysis), [22]; Gully dwarves: [23], [24], [25]/[26], [27]

Daranios (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's now some non-plot content based on secondary sources. I would like to add some more in the future if I get the chance. So I ask all who have given deletion vote based on "there are no secondary source/there is only-plot summary" - and the closer - to take that into consideration! Daranios (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, article is still a massive conglomerate of in-universe information, no evidence that this needs to exist and even if any information is useful there is no chance it deserves a standalone list. My vote stands. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I understand the standpoint that there is too much in-universe information here. But "if any information is useful", why should it be deleted rather than merged? Daranios (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enon, Hickman County, Kentucky

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

GNIS is sourced to Rennick. Rennick calls it a church, topos show a cemetery. Clearly not a community, fails WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-produced junk, lacks significant coverage about supposed community. Reywas92^Talk 19:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reference I can find to a community existing at this location is a passing mention in this quilting blog post from 2010, which is in no way a reliable source. Every other source refers to either Enon church or Enon cemetery. Since the sole reliable source for the existence of this community is Rennick and he identifies it as a church it would appear that this community does not exist. Churches do not automatically pass WP:GEOLAND and there's no evidence this one passes WP:GNG. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @86.23.86.239: I would appreciate it if you would stop calling these places "not a community". You may call them "non-notable" or "not notable enough to have a standalone article", but you have clearly been shown that it IS a community and the locals think of it as a community, so stop writing things like "this community does not exist". Normal Op (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Normal Op: I'm really sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. When I used the word community I was referring to the legal concept of an unincorporated community, not as an insult to the people who lived nearby. An isolated church does not meet the definition of a settlement, which requires there to be "clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population" per the USGS. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. And understood. :) Normal Op (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not seeing sufficient sourcing that indicates this was ever verifiably a community/settlement/what have ye. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tar Heel, Kentucky

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

I have no idea what in the world this could possibly be. GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick, but neither Rennick's Hickman County directory nor his index mention a Tar Heel. Not on the topographic maps, even those postdating GNIS. Coordinates take me to a barn. Not sure what this is/was, but it looks to fail WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-produced junk, is obviously not a community. Lacks significant coverage about supposed place. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have to speedy it, its been around for over 7 years!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ha, this one is odd. Not even entered onto GNIS until Jan 2013, is that odd? I found this [28], which appears to be some old research index of Hickman County place names. At pdf page 62, the entry for "Lick Skillet", it makes a reference to "Nearby was Shady Grove Sch. in the Tar Heel or New Chapel area." And i found the 1986 book that makes this reference online (see page 84)[29]. May dig a little more. Sure, it is probably not notable but a fun mystery.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- IIRC, the topos seemed to indicate that New Chapel was a church. The coordinates for Tar Heel are north of New Chapel, but there doesn't seem to really have ever been much of anything there. The same user also created Blue Pond, Kentucky, which after research turns out to be a pond, not a community, so a lot of these "places" are likely spurious. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The author Virgina Honchell Jewell's 1986 book about Hickman County has a section about a storyteller from "Tarheel". This is about as folklore-type stuff as you can get. That specific story is also copied into this book [30] (hopefully Google Books lets you see the pages) Quotes include: "Arthur Bugg, a delightful teller of tales and philosopher of Tarheel community..." "Tarheel is the area north of New Chapel Church. Various explanations have been given as to how it got its name--one being that it was settled by North Carolinians." "I remembered when there were seven or eight passenger trains a day passing through the Tarheel area." Note, I am not saying this is enough for notability so far, I'm just intrigued by the oddness of this one!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bluff, Kentucky

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

GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick, but Rennick has no entry in the Hickman County page, and none of the places named Bluff in his index are in Hickman County. Marked as a literal bluff along the Mississippi River on the topos. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-produced junk, is obviously not a community. Lacks significant coverage about supposed place. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Grove, Kentucky

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

I am completely bewildered as to what GNIS thinks ever was here. The GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick, but Rennick's Fulton County directory doesn't mention this, and all of the Walnut Groves in Rennick's index are in different counties. Topos show an uninhabited floodplain. The coordinates in the GNIS entry take me to the middle of field in near the Mississippi River, with no sign of human habitation anywhere nearby. Completely spurious. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I have no idea as well, I've found previous Kentucky junk that's likewise nowhere to be found in Rennick's directory. If you search his annotated topo maps there may be a label on it, but that's inadequate. Reywas92^Talk 05:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I found his annotated topos online. There's a handwritten marking of "Walnut Grove N" in an area with no signs of population on the topo. What "Walnut Grove N" means, I cannot fathom. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be just that, a grove of walnut trees. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Union, Fulton County, Kentucky

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

GNIS is sourced to Rennick. Rennick's county page doesn't mention it, and the only Union in Fulton County listed in his index is Union Cumberland Church, which is ... you guessed it ... identified as a church in the feature ID column. Appears on the topos as "Union Cumberland Church" or "Union Cemetery", although at one time there were two nearby buildings. Not a community, fails WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-produced junk, lacks significant coverage about supposed place. Reywas92^Talk 19:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbs, Kentucky

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

The GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick, but neither Rennick's Fulton County document nor his index mention a Stubbs. Topos show an isolated "Stubbs School" with only one other building in the immediate vicinity. Not a community, fails WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty, Fulton County, Kentucky

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

Not in Rennick's Fulton County directory. His index lists many places named Liberty, but the only one in Fulton County is identified as a Baptist Church. Topos show an isolated church building marked "Liberty Church" and an associated cemetery. Not a populated place, fails WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deathbringer (band)

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

Just another non-notable band on Wikipedia, nothing is new under the sun! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A progressive/technical death metal band from Belarus. The article was created by a user back in 2012 whose Wikipedia activity revolves around this band (he only edited the band's article and even added their link to the List of progressive metal bands article). So the COI is strong with this one. The sourcing of the article consists of sites that don't exist by now (their domain has been expired or the page is simply not available), social media, the site of their record label or incredibly trivial mentions (such as the Blabbermouth article where they are mentioned as support for the band Hate during tour). They have an article on ruwiki as well, but the sourcing isn't very good there either (for example, there are also a lot of social media pages, databases and unavailable/unreliable sites as sources). To date they have only released demos and one studio album. The article lists the reissue of that studio album separately (most likely to make it appear that they have multiple albums). I did a google search and I did not found anything reliable. The name "Deathbringer" is very common so of course when I searched with "Deathbringer band", I have mostly found stuff about other things named Deathbringer. So I looked up their sole studio album, "Homo Divisus" and the only things I found were the usual databases, streaming links, youtube videos, download and retail sites, lyrics sites and trivial mentions in context of the band (mostly on WP mirrors) This is the only album review I have found, and I am not convinced of this site's reliability (although I have used it numerous times). So to summarize: another underground, non-notable band who are not notable for Wikipedia. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale given by GhostDestroyer100. They do not satisfy WP:BAND. Celestina007 (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Charmk (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Tellure

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

The article is about non-notable author, I check the references in the article, tried to find references about the topic through the internet, fail WP:GNG Charmk (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This reference [31] is just one paragraph (not significant coverage). Charmk (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This reference ^[1] is written by Rob Chilson. According to the article (Alison Tellure is married to Rob Chilson), So this reference is not independent and can't be used to establish notability. Charmk (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Chilson, Rob; Wu, William F. (2020). 10 Analogs of the Future. Boruma Publishing. p. 37. ISBN 9780463980514.

Comment This reference (Biographical note, Analog, May 1984) is just a passing mention. It includes a story written by the author (Low Midnight - in page 74), but just two lines about the author (in page 91). Charmk (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This reference ^[1] is just a passing mention about Alison Tellure's Skysinger story. Charmk (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Schmidt, Stanley. (1995). Aliens and alien societies. Cincinnati, Ohio: Writer's Digest Books. p. 204. ISBN 1-59963-494-5. OCLC 988579828.

Comment This reference ^[1] is about (Awards) - (Award Nominations Two times - in 4th place and 3rd place) Being nominated for an award without winning it doesn't add too much to the notability. Charmk (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ "sfadb : Alison Tellure Awards". www.sfadb.com. Retrieved 2020-10-01.

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Fire (2020)

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

Article about grass fire which does not meet the threshold of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. This is a relatively small fire at 48 acres, for it to be considered notable or significant for any audience outside of the direct area. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 48 acres at its largest, and 60% contained after one day, garnering little attention in reporting sources. Closed a highway for a few hours, and the precautionary evacuation order was lifted less than 24 hours later; big deal. Only one fire crew response needed. Small potatoes in the wildfire context. Calfire doesn't even maintain a full statistical page on it. TJRC (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with @TJRC: and everyone else, delete it as author request --♦/\/\/\TheGeometryDashFan/\/\/\♦ (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with TJRC. This is completely lacking in notability and any significance regardless of how it is parsed. Paul H. (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fire is not notable. CountyCountry (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seyi Tinubu

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

The subject is not notable. Fails GNG. Stormy Chamber (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Stormy Chamber (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Stormy Chamber (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per solid rationale provided by Stormy Chamber. Furthermore, an individual is notable based on their own merit & not by proximity to a notable entity. Celestina007 (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Article does not meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO or NACTOR. Notability and sourcing guidelines should be strictly followed for BLPs. // Timothy :: talk 02:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Although there is a good deal of coverage on him, none of it seems to be in reliable sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G14 (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 23:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 4 News (disambiguation)

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

The deletion of Channel 4 News (United States) article has made this disambiguation page useless. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 14:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel 4 News (United States), I am partially responsible for this dab's being superfluous. Special:PrefixIndex/Channel 4 reveals nothing else to disambiguate. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:D guideline. Lightburst (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I assume WP:G14 applies here, as it is a disambig page that disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and ends in "(disambiguation)". I have tagged the article under the CSD criterion. -- Dps04 (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HD 204941

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

Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. For the four main criteria in WP:NASTCRIT, it is neither naked eye, nor in a catalogue of high historical importance, nor a subject of multiple non-trivial works, nor discovered before 1850. It is mentioned as one of a small number of objects in its discovery paper, and as one of a large number of objects in quite a few other papers. Non-technical coverage is virtually non-existent, although I did find an astrology blog referring to the planet (!). Lithopsian (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suspect an arbitrary and excessive usage of WP:NASTCRIT by Lithopsian, as questioned at User_talk:Trurle#Deletion_discussion_about_HD_204941. References for HD 204941 are good quality and article contain useful information compiled from at least 3 independent papers, even if not counting astronomical databases. Formally, i.m.h.o. deletion proposal falls to Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion#Article_quality case. Trurle (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; only one reference [32] has non-trivial/database coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails the criteria in WP:NASTRO: it does not appear that there is significant commentary on this object in multiple, non-trivial published works aside from inclusion in catalogs and surveys. Aldebarium (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, only one reference can be found, generally not notable, but especially fails WP:NASTRO. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Obvious consensus not to delete the content outright. Whether it should be merged or left alone is a question that can be answered outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, since the discussion at my talk page indicates there is some confusion, this close explicitly does not imply that the article must be kept as a standalone. It is simply to say that there is no consensus (not even an emerging movement towards consensus) to delete the content. If there is no consensus to delete, and a clear consensus based on keep and merge arguments that the content should be retained in some manner, then the appropriate close is keep (as in, "this content is not going to be deleted"). I also found no strong consensus one way or another for standalone keep vs merge/redirect, so I made a specific point of saying that that discussion can be handled outside AfD. I didn't think I had to specify that I meant "by a normal consensus-seeking process at an appropriate venue (usually the article's talk page)", but there we are. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions of the end of Wikipedia

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

This was a bold redirect to the main Wikipedia article which was reverted, so I'm nominating at AfD. I still wouldn't be opposed to a redirect (or a very very selective merge if anyone wants). My rationale for redirecting was:

This is a giant pile of WP:SYNTH. Basic statements about editor retention and funds should be at the main article. These aren't predictions as much as loosely related speculations about its future. There's not enough here to sustain a separate article while overcoming the SYNTH problems.

To expand on that a little, let me first note that the article content doesn't reflect its title. There are no actual predictions. At best there's some vague speculation. And much of it falls more into the general complaint department over at Criticism of Wikipedia (or bias, etc). Furthermore, as I initially noted, general observations about editor retention, funding, and such can (and already do) belong at the general article. Trying to present statistics from a source that's not predicting the end of Wikipedia in a way to make it sound like the end is nigh is again improper synthesis. There's a whole section titled "Possible antidote", which with its very name is trying to bolster the conclusion of this essay-like article, and doing so by taking an article that has nothing to do with the purported topic and folding that in.

This article takes scattershot articles about criticisms of, observations about funding, trends in editor decline, and so on, and tries to inappropriately synthesize that into some sort of notion that people are predicting Wikipedia's Doom (tm). This is a gross violation of our policy prohibiting original research and must not stay in place. Specific facts may possibly have a home in other articles, and if a redirect is deemed appropriate, I leave it to the discussion to determine where. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started this article. In first drafts I like to keep things simple and establish WP:GNG, which is Wikipedia's main inclusion criteria. At special:diff/807233190#References anyone can check the cited sources which all talk about how Wikipedia will end. When multiple sources have a topic as their focus, then that topic can be in Wikipedia. The nominator may be correct about some of the later content going off topic, but that issue is separate from notability and deletion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the state you linked, it's still unkeepable. There are no predictions of Wikipedia's end. Even in the section (in the old revision linked) titled "Another website kills Wikipedia", there are 5 sources listed, not one of which is actually predicting that another website will end Wikipedia. This is still SYNTH, as is the rest of the article, even in this old revision. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of RS - there is certainly a notable subject here. The plural title rather belies the synthesis argument. If only Wikipediocracy was an RS..... Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references provided make it clearly pass GNG. Are there any other specific deletion arguments presented? Any concerns over article wording should be brought to the talk page... and I'm not seeing any. $ɱ$ (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just started checking the sources, but so far, none of the ones I've looked at actually say that the end of Wikipedia is nigh. For example, the 2013 piece from Technology Review straight up and says [Sue Gardner] is surely right that Wikipedia isn't going away. Likewise, The Atlantic declares The encyclopedia isn't starving for stewardship or editorship yet. And The Telegraph only concludes that the current trend puts Wikipedia at the beginning of a path down which most of us would not want it to go. What they're talking about is the decline, or predictions of the decline, not the fall. This Daily Dot story doesn't even go that far; it doesn't infer that Wikipedia is actually in trouble. I urge everyone !voting here not to judge wiki-notability just by counting the footnotes, and I'll suggest that if kept, the article should be renamed. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference 1: describes Knol as a competitor, quotes Google rep as dismiss[ing] speculation that Knol was designed as a Wikipedia killer, does not speculate that Wikipedia is actually in trouble [33]. Reference 2: clickbait headline calls Knol a Wikipedia killer, actual text has nothing to back that up and only argues that Knol will be a better choice for students and teachers [34]. Reference 3: an early look at Wolfram Alpha which doesn't go further than saying Wikipedia might feel the pinch [35]. Reference 4: blog churn that hypes up an AOL project as a "Wikipedia killer" [36], whereas their own source gives it the much more tame description "AOL's answer to Wikipedia" and calls it "more of a design concept than anything else" [37], and I can't find any evidence that the "Owl" project actually went anywhere. Reference 5: the Technology Review story discussed above. Reference 6: a random opinion column again with a clickbait headline [38]. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of coverage on this topic even if they don't all say exactly "End of Wikipedia".★Trekker (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about whether they use the exact words "end of Wikipedia", but whether they even suggest that Wikipedia is ending, as opposed to maturing, or becoming rigid, or suffering from growing pains. XOR'easter (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of WP:RS to support WP:N- there is certainly a notable subject here. Lightburst (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by User:*Treker and Johnbod 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely selective merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. I say "extremely selective", because a lot of the page as it stands is based on sensationalism and ephemera. It makes more sense to discuss what's left as part of the broader picture — Wikipedia being criticized for insular community practices, etc. — than it does to give that material a clickbait headline of our own. XOR'easter (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a reasonably covered topic if you ask me. Keep. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely selective merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. Per nom and XOReaster, and per WP:NOPAGE. This article as it stands is pure trash. In the lead we have Many online encyclopedias exist; proposed replacements for Wikipedia have included Google's since-closed Knol,[1][2] Wolfram Alpha,[3] and AOL's Owl.[4] which is ridiculous since Knol is closed and Owl doesn't even have a WP article. The section on "Decline in editing" is something covered in Criticism of Wikipedia. The section "Sources of viewers and funds" the content appears to have zero relevance to the subject, and is cited to a source which also doesn't say anything about Wikipedia ending. The section "Possible antidote" is WP:OR -- it talks of automated editing as an "antidote" and cites a single research paper -- (i) which is primary, (ii) which only gives a method for generating articles without commenting on if these methods would take over humans.

WP:NOPAGE applies even if the topic is notable. I'm not sure of notability either. I don't think sensationalist headlines like Will Virgin Killer be a Wikipedia killer? counts as contributing to the notability. – SD0001 (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely selective merge per XOR, SD, NOPAGE, and also to uphold our core content policies like NPOV and NOR. This is a mess of SYNTH, and what little that's not sourced to blog posts, opinion, or rank speculation, would be much better presented on the other existing articles about Wikipedia, including its spinouts like Criticism of Wikipedia. I'm not even sure the redirect is worth keeping. Le v!v ich 14:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, the article can be improved. The repeated claim that X thing is going to kill Wikipedia has been around, well, as long as Wikipedia itself. IMHO, it's a thing separate from the Criticism article and well-covered. Ckoerner (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The repeated claims of X thing killing Wikipedia are just clickbait sensationalisms created by cheap online blogs. They don't actually mean it. If we restrict our attention to respectable sources only, we have sources like:
none of which actually talk of an impending end. Maybe renaming the article to Decline of Wikipedia (currently a redirect) would be good as that's the topic for which notability exists. – SD0001 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable subject. If there are other concerns, such issues should be addressed separately. Northern Escapee (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG, what remains is standard clean-up, although nom may have some fair criticism of the tone, and delivery. Glee^anon 18:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't, and just perfunctorily stating that while completely ignoring all the careful analysis of sources above isn't helpful. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. Specifically, not one source is talking about the end of Wikipedia. And to the closer, this was oddly mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#Predictions of the end of Wikipedia (which also had some blatantly false reason that the article was kept), presumably promptinng this latest comment. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable people can disagree, YMMV. Glee^anon 02:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable, sources do not actually discuss the actual end of Wikipedia. (t · c) buidhe 00:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good amount of coverage from eminently scholarly and academic sources. Right cite (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bill Cipher, Stan, Twins, Dipper - Gravity falls and J.Smile 14:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory, so article for list of program is not allowed, see WP:DIRECTORY. I will also nominated all articles that is a list of program Bill Cipher, Stan, Twins, Dipper - Gravity falls and J.Smile 13:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bill Cipher, Stan, Twins, Dipper - Gravity falls and J.Smile 13:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Smile (Love & V.A.V.I): I'm going to warn you away from nominating any more such lists just based on type. Your reading of WP:NOTDIR is very superficial, and simply because something lists TV programs does not mean it's "not allowed". We have always allowed lists or categories of original programming by network, because it's one of the most obvious way to index them. When these lists become a problem is when they include a lot of nonnotable series or transitory programming (nonoriginal series just shown by syndication or licensing). So keep this and please do not nominate any more without a more developed and specific rationale. postdlf (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 14:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the sourcing is sufficient to pass GNG. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Lynch (American football)

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

This guy was for 2 years a Division 2 coach and for another 2 years a Divison 3 coach. Sourcing to a source directly from one of his past employers does not add to GNG. I found this https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/article/New-Magnolia-football-coach-taking-it-one-day-at-9564223.php article about a Ron Lynch who was a high school football coach from the 1980s until at least 2006, mainly in Texas I believe, but there is no indication it is the same person, and being in a "neighborhoods" section I would question it adding towards GNG. This article https://www.itemonline.com/sports/alpha_omega_academy_lions/ron-lynch-resigns-as-lions-football-head-coach/article_fc6311b9-b0b1-596e-9fd1-7135b9050a63.html seems to be about the same person as the other one. If this guy was actively coaching high school football in 2019 I have serious doubts he was born in 1940. I am finding a few hyper local mentions of that football coach, but nothing showing that is this same person who was a college football coach in the 1970s and 1980s John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He received a whole lot of significant coverage in one newspaper. E.g., [39], [40], [41], [42]. If coverage is found in other publications, he may pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; lots of coverage of subject found in multiple newspapers on Newspapers.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: Could you link a couple examples of significant coverage other than from the Battle Creek newspaper? That's the only thing that held me back from voting to keep. Cbl62 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Newspapers.com subscriptions is up for renewal right now, so I don't have full access, but there appears to be coverage, including AP stories, about Lunch in other newspapers: https://www.newspapers.com/search/#dr_year=1970-1990&query=%22ron+lynch%22+coach&p_place=MI. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those results are pretty similar to what I found where the significant coverage is from the Battle Creek paper. I dug a little further and confirmed the Lynch who coached at Olivet and Hillsdale moved to Texas and coached high school ball there for many years. See this article for confirmation. Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with sources found, they just need to be added to the article. This is an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am convinced that there are enough sources here to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Remus (song)

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

Well written, but doesn't show how it passes WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS, since the references aren't truly in-depth discussions of the song, mere mentions or short blurbs. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Nominator has not specified how exactly this fails, nor if he has looked through all the listed print items, or done additional research. Open to changing "vote." Caro7200 (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Caro7200 and WP:NSONGS/WP:GNG. There's a ton of print refs here, and at least one of them—an in-depth description of the song—is quoted in the article. Gbooks reveals more in-depth discussion. Passes WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus against deletion Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nijikon

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

It is something that belongs more on urban dictionary than wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flalf (talk • contribs) 12:45, 1 October 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. Nom does not provide any policy-based rationale for deletion. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.★Trekker (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Glossary of anime and manga per WP:NOTDIC. As it was I removed a huge chunk of WP:OR, this can easily be summed up at the right place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a short but well-referenced encyclopedia article. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this topic passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename method

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

trivial piece of jargon. neither the content (a couple of paragraphs of prescriptive advice) nor the title (which isn't in a grammatical format) are worth merging to refactoring (the ostensible parent), which already contains the single bullet point that encapsulates this whole subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no there there; "Rename Method" was a title used in 1 book in 1999. The general concept of renaming a method is just part of Code refactoring. Extract class should probably also go away. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2004–05 Carlisle United F.C. season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 15:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 16:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 21:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Temptations

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

Non notable documentary, with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, sites selling the DVD, and passing mentions in articles about the actors who appeared in the film. Seems to fails WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since March 2010. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb as an attempted comprehensive listing of everything in no way can show something is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since the album was never tagged for AfD, I don't feel comfortable deleting it in addition - try A9 or PROD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Satan

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

Non-notable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Finnish industrial metal band. I doubt their notability. Despite being active for five years now (that is enough time for a band to achieve notability - or at least there are examples) I couldn't find anything reliable about this band. All of the sources are just about them releasing an album/music video, with the band's biography copied from their official site. Every source copies the biography from the original site. I have found some album reviews/interviews but unfortunately they are featured on blog-like sites / sites of dubious reliability. Even though Terrorizer Magazine is reliable, it is just another announcement of King Satan releasing their debut album. Brave Words (which is not included in the article) is also reliable, but that's still an album announcement. While album / music video announcements are about the band of course, I consider them trivial because they are usually short and the biography is often copied either from Wikipedia or the band's official site. So, to summarize, I think five years was still not enough for King Satan to achieve notability. I also nominate the album's article for deletion:

King Fucking Satan

It relies on sources that are already present in the main band article. There are also entries on the band on fiwiki and huwiki, but they rely on album announcements and music video announcements. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. There's zero reliable sources, period. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saint Philip, Barbados. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Lords, Barbados

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

Insufficient evidence that this exists in any way that is distinct from merely being the neighborhood of Sam Lord's Castle -- The Anome (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a lot of one-liners in Category:Populated places in Barbados, which appear to be neighborhoods rather than distinct villages. In that case there would need to be significant coverage about the place; notability is not shown here. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that villages really exist in Barbados, it's more a case of parishes containing informal neighbourhoods.----Pontificalibus 13:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source given doesn't support the claim that this is a settlement or neighbourhood. I found no other sources.----Pontificalibus 13:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint Philip, Barbados, where it is mentioned. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N'Lightning Software

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

Non-notable company. I tried rewriting this two years ago but couldn't find any sources besides those listed. #1 and #2 only mention the company in passing, while #3 is a corporate database entry. WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Per WP:XY, there are two possible redirect targets, none better than the other, wherefore the article should be deleted. IceWelder [✉] 08:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 08:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 08:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator's reasoning above. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability of this company, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Atchugarry

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

Puff piece article. No indication of being notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - gallery may be notable, but it is not established for the individual. 1292simon (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTINHERITED. The gallery, and his father might be notable, but not its owner. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Business TV (BTV Business)

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

Notability not established- coverage is routine or not independent. 1292simon (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deb'rah Eunice Osagiede

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

BLP mostly sourced to affiliated websites. The main reason for thinking the subject might be notable is that she won “the prestigious United States of America Congress Women of Excellence among the top 20 global women.” Actually this turns out not to be accurate. A single US Congressman set up a multi-ethnic task force which seems to some kind of advisory board of his own. This task force created an award that she won. This is definitely a non notable award and on that basis the subject does not meet our notability requirements. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject has done and achieved other notable acts with relevant references. The article doesn't have to be deleted. Livingstone Imonitie (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find reliable independent sources that show this, I mean not ones connected to her various activities? Mccapra (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:MILL. Minor pastor/minister, unknown outside of her community. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical media

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

WP:TNT. I don't even know where to begin. It's peppered with legitimate sounding sources but it's packed to the brim with utter junk spammy sites. Graywalls (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this neologism does not meet our guidelines for having an article on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps stubbify per WP:NOTESSAY. Notable topic: see the Scholar result. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I just start-ified it, which gave the reliable refs some space to breathe. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it isn't really a neologism, but it has been well covered. Notability probably more clear with in-line references, but there are more in addition to the ones already present. StarM 16:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a thing, but we can do better than this while culture jamming consists of a response to the dominant practices within it, tactical media uses the dominant practices in order to penetrate it and become part of it to explain the difference between culture jamming and tactical media. Vexations (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tactical media is a well-known practice in the media art world; It's a thing. Google books returns enough sources discussing it, as well as a book by the same name, that it is an easy keep. We just need someone to clean up the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Dickin Schinas

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

BLP with nothing but primary sources and links to her work. Can't find any evidence of notability. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I should comment, I noticed that the article claims an event in the subjects life was covered in national press but I cannot find any evidence of that. All I found was honours given to the rescuer. If indeed the rescue were covered in the national presses, then perhaps that rescue could warrant an article, per WP:COVERAGE, which could mention Ms Schinas and her books. But that still wouldn't warrant an article on this Ms Sinchas herself per WP:SINGLEEVENT. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kerala Premier League. Fenix down (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Academy Tirur

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

Article fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. The club has not played in any of the national level football leagues in India (Indian Super League, I-League, or I-League 2nd Division). The club has also not played in an official cup competition (Super Cup, Federation Cup, Durand Cup). The Kerala Premier League is a regional state league only, not even "officially" the third tier of Indian football. You don't earn any promotion from winning the KPL. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to KPL. Only source currently given is about the league as a whole. News coverage mentions SAT only as who another team played or a profile of Abdul Hakku who started his career there but has since moved on. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I would agree with Paul. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above; no coverage to support article in its own right but it is a plausible search term and redirecting seems like a good alternative to deletion Spiderone 10:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pathachakra F.C.

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. The club has not played in any of the national level football leagues in India (Indian Super League, I-League, or I-League 2nd Division). The club has also not played in an official cup competition (Super Cup, Federation Cup, Durand Cup). The Calcutta Football League is a regional state league only, not even "officially" the third tier of Indian football. You don't earn any promotion from winning the CFL. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per first AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathachakra F.C - this is the third btw. No evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (and the nom before that, and the nom before that). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - hasn't ever competed in a national cup or league and no evidence of GNG Spiderone 17:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - nothing has changed from previous AfD. Why is this not a speedy delete? Coderzombie (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francis and the Godfather

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

Speedy delete, Film only just announced, patently fails WP:NFF. I already created this in draftspace anyway until it meets NFF. Rusted AutoParts 05:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete not far enough along in the creation stage to justify an article. I am also not convinced that a film of this type we can be sure it will ever be notable, but it is clearly not notable yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NFF or even WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY2008 10:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Phibian

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

BLP of an unsuccessful candidate for elected office. Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NPOL by miles, and falls short of WP:GNG as well, despite having a funny story, there's not enough coverage that I found on a search to indicate notability. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing enough here for WP:ARTIST. All I found in a search was this arrest for a hit and run.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — but this features neither credible evidence that he has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, nor enough reliable sourcing to make his candidacy markedly more special than the norm for unsuccessful candidates. Every candidate gets campaign coverage, so the existence of a small smattering of campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people who run for US house are not notable for that and he has no other claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Surel

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

WP:FRINGEBLP of a subject who fails WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:BASIC. Holds a position at what appears to be a for-profit distance learning institution. Co-author of one low-cited but legitimately published paper (doi:10.1097/00006216-200607000-00005), but I see no indication of passing any of the relevant SNGs. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is possible for fringe practitioners to be notable, but only through mainstream sources that provide a sufficiently neutral and in-depth description of who they are and what they do. We don't appear to have any of that in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For an out there WP:FRINGE topic like 'paranormal research' we would definitely need substantial coverage by mainstream scientific sources, not what is present here. The article is written as a promotional piece of WP:FRINGE work and looks unsalvageable. Nsk92 (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the nomination and the !votes above (and the article being tagged for half a decade without improvement doesn't help either). XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need substantial mainstream coverage for someone involved in such a fringe topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farwell, California

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

Durham calls it a rail station on the Southern Pacific RR. No evidence that it there was ever a community by that name. Does not meet basic Wiki threshold for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although "Farwell" appears on numerous historic USGS topographic maps, none of them illustrate any indication of either a populated area or a significant structure or roads associated with it. It is only one of many ordinary train stop passenger stops. As concluded above, it does not meet basic Wikipedia threshold for notability.Paul H. (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nintendo Entertainment System#Technical specifications. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Processing Unit

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

Fails WP:GNG. This single part of the NES is not individually notable. Already discussed in Nintendo Entertainment System#Technical specifications. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nintendo Entertainment System#Technical specifications. Reasonable search term. --Masem (t) 04:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a reasonable search term. Can expand this there, if sources are found. Jontesta (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NCT Dream. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jeno

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

The subject of the article does not meet WP:NMUSIC, as he does not have individual notability, outside of his activities with his group NCT Dream so the page should be redirected there. Nangears (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nangears (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Nangears (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - no evidence of individual notability Evaders99 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But why? i've put a reliable source, and it's so many! PLEASE DO NOT DELETE IT or i'll say this to the fans yall doesnt like jeno so you delete the article. And why the article? I've done all the task you say though? It's perfect! The chronology of his career are just like that, why you say its not enough? The indonesian article was so short and you not delete it?!?!? its discrimination against me >:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierclaire (talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TALK TO ME, WHATS WRONG WITH THAT ARTICLE? IM IN ONLINE CLASS EVERYDAY AND ITS HARD TO WRITE A GOOD ARTICLE WHEN YOURE STRESSED LIKE ME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierclaire (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NCT Dream - He has a few solo TV appearances but nothing significant enough to achieve his own notability as an individual performer. All of his media coverage is in relation to the group and he is already introduced sufficiently in their article. Also, we keep articles in Wikipedia based on the notability of the person therein, not because the article's creator is stressed out with a persecution complex. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 14:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The majority of editors argue that WP:NOTSTATS does not apply to these articles. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

England cricket team Test results (1946–1959)

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS/WP:NOTMIRROR. A summarised list of every single match over a 15 year period. Essentially the same as using ESPNCricinfo statsguru. We don't do lists like this for other playing nations. These lists have been nominated before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/England cricket team Test results (1946–59) Ajf773 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of a series:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep note that WP:NOTMIRROR does not apply, as that refers to "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files", which is clearly not the case here. WP:NOTSTATS applies to "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics." The nominated lists, most of which have been judged by the community to be of Featured status, do not simply provide unexplained statistics, but they put the statistics into context by use of independent sources, as required and allowed under WP:LISTN. While the nominator is correct that the lists for the other playing nations have been deleted (wrongly in my opinion) note that such lists do exist in other sports; Wales national football team results 1876–1899 and Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results are both also Featured lists for example. Harrias ^talk 06:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, they have been nominated before, and if you look at the version prior to nom in 2015, they were terrible articles. However, these seem to be a rare case of being nominated previously and editors then taking the time and effort to improve them up to Featured List status. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so why are these articles any different to those that were part of this discussion? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Test cricket matches results (1877–1914). Ajf773 (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those were bare lists that genuinely did nothing more than replicate lists from elsewhere. In contrast, these lists combine match and series results, and add a summary table to help put the results into context. The lead section of each article discusses and highlights the information given in the table, generally comparing it to other nations active at the time. (Note that England cricket team Test results (2005–2019) is an exception to these comments, as that article is still in the old format, which as it stands does not do anything more than replicate lists available elsewhere.) Harrias ^talk 09:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the timeframe of each article is completely arbitrary and while they may include significant periods, they have no apparent significance in their own right, so there is no real context. The prose of each may highlight a few milestones, occurrences or statistics during the time period in question, but the former are covered elsewhere and the stats have no significance because of the lack of context. For example, we have "England faced the Australia/West Indies most frequently during this period..." – so what? Why does/should that matter? The simple answer is, that it doesn't – it just meaningless trivia. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can see different from the previous versions is the addition of results and the tour that the match was associated with. Hardly an improvement. The stats table at the bottom is a perfect example of trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the window dressing of some woolly prose, these are nothing more than indiscriminate lists of results created through duplication of an online database, and as such are an obvious violation of WP:NOT (STATS, MIRROR). Looking at the FL nominations, it appears that some of the key FL criteria were given very little thought. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the contexts that have been attempted here are invented ones as the timeframes are arbitrary; they are not "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" so clearly fail LISTN. The true context is as a whole, which makes this an indiscriminate mirror and a failure of WP:NOT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harrias sums it up perfectly, a list decided by the community to be of sufficient quality to become a featured list wouldn't become so if the rationale for this nomination was met. A ludicrous nomination. StickyWicket (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what defines a list to be good enough for a feature list these days? Ajf773 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lists that “put the statistics into context by use of independent sources, as required and allowed under WP:LISTN.” StickyWicket (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i note that the nominator did not reach out to anybody related to this article and others becoming featured lists prior to nominating for deletion ie. fl nominator (did alert them to afd nomination), (eventual) supporters, and fl delegate, nor let their concerns be known on the articles' talkpage, or the cricket project talkpage. although not required (see "main contributors" (C. 3.), doesnt seem to reflect the collaborative nature of the project? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Harrias. The fact that some of these are featured list status surely means that they pass WP:NOTSTATS. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we're going to have articles on every cricket tour, such as Indian cricket team in England in 1959, it's reasonable to have a list of them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are not lists of tours, they are lists of individual matches and results. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

86 400

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 17:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected at Afc as being as an advertisement. Native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 17:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: I was the one who accepted the AFC, however I concede that there is a possibility that the secondary sources which cover it are paid publicity. I accepted it on balance as the subject is a licensed deposit-taking organization, however that should not be given much weight in the scheme of things. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources included are not native advertising, but earned and organic editorial – including a mixture of local, national and international reliable secondary sources, plus the Australian banking regulator's own website (APRA). If there are any of the sources which you think don't meet the requirements, please let me know and I can see if there are more appropriate ones available. −− Gumption59

Comment Review of references:

[43] Neobank with 110 staff targets $2b in mortgages. standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

[44]. standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

[45] UK financial entrepreneur Anthony Thomson is launching a new digital bank in Australia. simple listings or compilations, such as: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

[46] Metro Bank founder joins digital challengers in Australia. simple listings or compilations, such as: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

[47]] New retail bank 86 400 rattles tin for fresh equity. standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

The other five references are exactly the same. Standard announcements for a startup. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 13:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the analysis of references above, none meet the criteria for establishing notabilty. 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⁺⁺ 13:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not have needed WP:SIGCOV directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 12:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to One Hot Minute#One Hot Minute tour. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One Hot Minute Tour

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Dylanvt (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 14:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question How is it not notable if it had 80 shows at notable venues? Dream Focus 09:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, per WP:CONCERT, the number of shows is not relevant in determining notability of a concert tour. What’s relevant is the presence or absence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources beyond simply noting that the tour has happened / will happen. That is, coverage about why the tour is notable, not just coverage about the tour. Dylanvt (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not seeing any coverage in the other tour articles. Blood Sugar Sex Magik Tour By the Way World Tour Turd Town Tour etc. Odd that a major band wouldn't have a review of its tours in the relevant music review media. Dream Focus 15:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, perhaps odd, but nonetheless true apparently. Dylanvt (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One_Hot_Minute#One_Hot_Minute_tour, where it is already covered with more and better sources than this article provides. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One_Hot_Minute#One_Hot_Minute_tour Dream Focus 18:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One_Hot_Minute#One_Hot_Minute_tour Lightburst (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Chilson, Rob; Wu, William F. (2020). 10 Analogs of the Future. Boruma Publishing. p. 37. ISBN 9780463980514.

[2] Schmidt, Stanley. (1995). Aliens and alien societies. Cincinnati, Ohio: Writer's Digest Books. p. 204. ISBN 1-59963-494-5. OCLC 988579828.

[:1-3] "sfadb : Alison Tellure Awards". www.sfadb.com. Retrieved 2020-10-01.

[1]

[1]

[1]