Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 October	12 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 delete. JGHowes ^talk 15:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Bakshi

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

not notable and promotional. Much of the editing is by a clear coi editor supplemented by that on an undeclared paid editor--it should never have gotten out of Draft. . There is no evidence that the center she runs is "one of the most renowned IVF clinics in India." The references are all PR, PR apparently written by the same person for different publication. I know I am saying the Times of India article also is PR: to prove this, just read it. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely PR. The RSP entry on The Times of India needs an update anyways, it's fairly well documented that it engages in undisclosed paid news as well and at the least shouldn't be used to determine notability when there's a lack of other reliable sources on the same. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creator isn't even trying here. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly paid article ChunnuBhai (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Astonished to see how this article has remained here for four years. Created by User:Dr. Rita Bakshi Senior IVF Specialist definitely is self promotion. It failed GNG then, it fails GNG now. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 20:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly paid article ChunnuBhai (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC) _{Only one vote allowed. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete per nom.Note The Times of India piece is blog case study. My daughter is now a 2-year old IVF baby: Case Study not an article in The Times of India.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent reasoning from all of the above Spiderone 10:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, PR Devokewater (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everyone else. Obviously promotional. HiwilmsTalk 07:38, 18 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. JGHowes ^talk 15:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enventure Engineering

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

Non-notable company with zero significant coverage in secondary sources. Does not pass NCORP or GNG. M4DU7 (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it fails the notability criteria as mentioned earlier and contribution is nearly entirely by one single purpose account and this looks very much like prominence increasing public relations effort. Graywalls (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Promotional article with PR sourcing. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article is purely WP:PROMO. Even one of the references are from "Online PR News". HiwilmsTalk 07:41, 18 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⁺⁺ 13:08, 19 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 10:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lament (film)

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. The Korean article didn't have any useful citations to help it pass. Tagged for notability since August 2011. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has previously been prodded and deprodded so soft delete is not available.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, nothing found here either to establish notability JW 1961 Talk 12:18, 18 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. JGHowes ^talk 15:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hersh

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO as I am unable to find any substantial coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Promotional article and subject has no legitimate third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - non-winners/placers/showers of reality shows are not inherently notable. The investment he "won" was $ 1/2 million. I have been director of non-profits with larger annual budgets, and executor of an estate four times that size. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article does not prove notability, looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 12:40, 17 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. JGHowes ^talk 15:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rababah

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

this article has been garbage since it was started 11 years ago: I see no notability about this family Huldra (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Huldra (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no explanation of what makes the family/lineage notable. Geschichte (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A web search by me only produces this article and an article about a Bedouin playing a violin at a camel festival! JW 1961 Talk 12:23, 18 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. JGHowes ^talk 15:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malappuram college sedition row

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

This article has not had any coverage apart from a single news cycle. As such, WP:NOTNP . There does not seem to be any addition that would happen here in future. ChunnuBhai (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, this just seems to be an locally controversial arrest of non-notable people. Jumpytoo Talk 21:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is a total violation of not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insignificant story and clearly a case of WP:NOTNEWS. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, this was a protest from some years ago that has been forgotten. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,This is a local case , I agree with WP:NOTNEWS , Alex-h (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no lasting impact or notability; no suitable redirect or merge target Spiderone 12:25, 18 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. JGHowes ^talk 15:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akanksha Damini Joshi

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

Fails WP:GNG All sources are either primary PR, in passing mention or blogs that are unreliable. ChunnuBhai (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:INDIANEXP. Some sources in the article are acceptable. Futebol 9 (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article about the highly distinguished director of documentary films. The four films included here are all probably notable and, lacking articles, it makes good sense to have the contents combined in this article. As for Joshi, she presents the subjects of her films, not herself, but nevertheless there is some coverage of the individual.[1][2][3][4][5] and awards.[6] Also, because she is well known, coverage of a bad incident editorially not included in the article.[7] Thincat (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources provided by Thincat show that she is clearly notable in her field Spiderone 21:51, 15 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) 00:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Harris

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable skateboarder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He got a fair amount of coverage three decades ago but is not among the all-time greats of freestyle skating. Article reflects this by consisting of unsourced original research and meaningless filler such as descriptions of his board graphics. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's my understanding that snow/skateboarders are not inherently notable, and this one has never been in an international competition. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 13 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) 00:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Howard

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS, most sources are primary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Since his name is very common, I included "skateboard" and "skateboarding" within the searches and only found passing mentions. I searched Google, JSTOR, Canada Newsstream (on ProQuest) and Academic OneDrive. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Other than a Thrasher article, there's no coverage at all, and YouTube doesn't count. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 13 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. JGHowes ^talk 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Yarra Ranges Shire election

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

De-PRODded by an IP. Original PROD rationale was "Upcoming hyper-local election (Yarra Ranges Shire is only a local government area, equivalent to a municipality), zero indication that it has had or will have significance outside the local area."

Point still stands - WP:N demands "significant attention by the world at large", and there is no sourcing that indicates this particular election has gained any greater attention than the expected local coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local council elections are not encylopdic. Teraplane (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local council elections aren't really eligible for articles unless they somehow receive significant coverage above and beyond the hyper-local press coverage they would normally receive. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We almost always delete articles about elections in local governments of much less than 90,000 constituents. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 13 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 20:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kulanurkhva Church

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

No evidence that this meets WP:NBUILD. That would "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What i see is statement, unchallenged, that the church "was built in the late medieval period". And clicking on a link in the article brings me to a page with a map and fairly long text in some language I cannot read. Having an AFD "discussion" among uninformed persons about an ancient--hence probably wikipedia-notable--church is not helpful. --Doncram (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Georgia/Abkhazia apparently has a great deal of medieval churches if the dates in these articles are accurate. There are apparently no less than four in Tsebelda, Gulripshi District (the district has a population under 20,000). The churches are all falling down to lack of maintenance, indicating a lack of interest, and no substantial sources can be found on them in any language. (t · c) buidhe 01:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, right...meaning this sarcastically... as if you converse in Abkhaz and Kartvelian languages and as if you have expertly reviewed available sources. As if you are an authority in all languages and all materials everywhere. Sure.... --Doncram (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If sources exist you're welcome to list them here. I was not able to find any. Without sources we cannot write an article. (t · c) buidhe 06:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in the English Wikipedia, no sources in the Georgian Wikipedia. WP:BURDEN for showing notability and verifiability of the content here lies on those who want to keep this, I'd say. Blithely assuming that an unsourced Wikipedia article is accurate is also "not helpful". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 20:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I'm a big fan of keeping old church articles, but there's not enough sourcing available to verify any details. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 13 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 Move to German space programme. Sandstein 20:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

German missions to the Moon

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

Not a reasonable topic for an article. There have been no German missions to the moon. The Apollo program may have had "German involvement" but ws not a German mission. The other programmes mentioned are pure speculation. There is no article like Space exploration in Germany to redirect this to. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The German Wikipedia page has quite different contents. More down-to-earth... Also, the category Space programme of Germany seems substantial enough. However, moon exploration does not seem to be that viable of a topic when it comes to Germany. Geschichte (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to German space programme. It could act as the main article for the category, which has substantial material. The few statements that are there relating to the moon can just be part of the overall page. I think this might require incubation, though, as work will need to be put in to transform the article. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to German space programme. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to German space programme.TH1980 (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move per above.★Trekker (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to a new German space programme (or similarly titled) article, as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to German space programme Terasail ^[Talk] 15:00, 18 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. Cabayi (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cplustv

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

I stand by my previous afd request. This is a non-notable online tv. WP:BROADCAST doesn't apply and subject fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any significant coverage. Article has two refs but they are press release/promotinal news. The article creator also has connection with this subject. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this second incarnation of the article does not appear to have addressed any of the concerns at all; there is still no evidence that this passes WP:GNG as there do not appear to be any reliable sources not connected with the subject Spiderone 18:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG.~Yahya (✉) • 21:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some misunderstanding. CPLUSTV is a well known online TV in Chittagong region of Bangladesh. Cplustv also have verified facebook page (www.facebook.com/cplustv). You can check there are a lot of fans and followers in facebook. More than 1.2M likes and more than 1.6M followers in facebook. Beside the cplustv also got youtube silver button from youtube for 1 Million subscriber and now in youtube cplustv have 794K subscribers. Cplustv owner MR. Alamgir Apu also got people's choice award in BD Apps Summit 2019. Ref links: (https://www.samakal.com/todays-print-edition/tp-projokti-protidin/article/19076399/ছয়-তরুণ-পেল-বিডিঅ্যাপস-পুরস্কার), (https://www.kalerkantho.com/print-edition/tech-everyday/2019/07/31/798079). So I think this article should be on Wikipedia. Forhadsikder90 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by how many people like their Facebook page or how many followers one has on YouTube. The fact that the owner has won some awards is also not considered to be evidence of notability. If you want to prove that Cplustv is notable, you will need to find reliable secondary sources that cover Cplustv (not its owner) in significant detail. Spiderone 16:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cplustv also have significant coverage. Cplustv got certification of appreciation from University of Chittagong ^[1] for Language Maintenance and Language Education in Globalized World at 25th February, 2020. Here is the ref links of The Azadi ^[2] News link ^[3] and ref link from Dainik Purbokone ^[4] Beside this we also have the coverage from Bhorer Kagoj ^[5]. Links ^[6]Forhadsikder90 (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got a certificate? I don't consider this as a notable achievement for which this online tv needs an article. Also at the end of the refs, it's clearly says this is a "press release". Also please disclosure your connection with this tv in your user page, see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.-- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk)`

Sir, The certificate its really a great achievement for saving the dying language, which is given from an renowned University. Please check this link Which is not press release:^[7]. And also you can check this one too ^[8]. And also this is true that I have connection with Cplustv. Can you please help me how can I disclose my contribution.Forhadsikder90 (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete. I looked and translated [8]. It is a very short entry, and reads like a press release. If this is the best, well, this clearly fails WP:NCOMPANY. Maybe this can survive on Bengali Wikipedia (no interwiki present), but does not seem to be important enough for English Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 15:21, 19 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 based on both promotional and notability concerns. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haider Ali (musician)

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

I don't believe this individual is notable per Wikipedia criteria in WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NARTIST. The citations are to articles about other things which merely mention him as being a part of something, but none discuss him significantly, and I am unable to find such sources from a Google search. ... discospinster _talk 18:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, user: discospinster, I am the original author of the following article. Thank you for raising concerns about the article, I appreciate your efforts in keeping the article on check to make sure it follows all the Wikipedia criteria in WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NARTIST. I have done my best to gather as many sources to support the article as I could for the past 11 months or so, however, I welcome anyone to improve the references of the article by adding more relevant sources, and I do believe that the subject belongs to the Wikipedia mainspace as there are several sources that talk about him in detail, for instance, the following article on the Atlantic talks about him and his art in great detail^[1] however, I am working on to find more relevant sources for the article as we speak. Thank you! Alexjnoah (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unambiguous promo. Vexations (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rasul, Nadia (17 April 2012). "Trucks as Art: Pakistan's Colorful Tradition, With a Midwestern Twist". The Atlantic. Retrieved 11 October 2020.

Delete this is obviously a promotional effort. I trimmed at least a dozen bad sources (Linkedin, Coursera and the like). The Atlantic source is decent but it is a couple of sentences. Based on the included sources, this a GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would beg to differ as I have already stated on the article's talk page, I have no affiliation with subject of the article, nor do I have any biases. I added as many sources as I could find on Google search, and I am in the process of editing the article to improve the sources, however, it needs time, there are already many decent sources cited, and I am looking for more as we speak, and I welcome any of you to help and improve this article, and here is another source that I have just found and now adding to the article, it talks about the subject in detail, and it's from a very reputable news orginaztion in India.^[1] Alexjnoah (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ KolkataSeptember 27, Indrajit Kundu. "Art for peace: Pakistani painters lend colour to Durga Puja this year!". India Today. Retrieved 11 October 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

@Alexjnoah: Please do not try to delete the AFD page again. That does not work.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above (new) editor has also carefully tried to scrub the article from all AFD sorting lists, and reverted the removals of linkedin etc.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in addition to the important concerns about sourcing from linkedin pages and the like, many of the sources refer to a different subject entirely. (The link in this discussion page, about painting a bus in Durga Puja, refers to a different Haider Ali.) The one that is the subject of this page seems to miss GNG by quite a bit. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The person referred to in the Atlantic article is not the same person in this article, it is also Haider Ali (artist). ... discospinster _talk 05:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, thank you for raising the concerns and outlining the issues with this article. I want to take this opportunity to address everything clearly and form the basis for keeping this article in the mainspace and explain with polices as to why the article has a place in the Wiki encyclopedia. I would also like to request the nominator of the deletion of this article and any administrator(s) to form the judgment based on logical reasoning presented before us, and the review process should not be decided solely by head count, but by consensus according to Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review. Since our discussion several days ago, I have made some important edits, and cleared all the issues raised above, and added half a dozen new relevant sources from major news publications in Pakistan. The irrelevant sources and information confusing the subject of this article with another person have now been removed, and all the discrepancies have been addressed accordingly as well. The LinkedIn sources were used as part of the WP:ABOUTSELF policy under which self-published sources from the subject may be used as sources of information about themselves if the article is not based primarily on such sources which it never was, however, the LinkedIn sources have also been removed now due to being controversial in this WP:AFD debate. Now onto why the subject is of public interest and why the article should be kept, and how it meets the 'notable' per Wikipedia criteria under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NARTIST, and specifically WP:MUSIC policies — upon research, I have found that the subject of this article is a member of internationally acclaimed Pakistani pop/rock band, Strings (band), with whom he (the subject) and the rest of the band have sold over 25 million albums worldwide to this day, and have won the following awards for their music performances internationally and in Pakistan Strings_(band)#Awards_and_honours and it meets the criteria set forth under WP:BAND notability policy on all counts. Furthermore, the subject has also been a part of the house band on Coke Studio (Pakistan) — the longest-running annual television music show in Pakistan, running annually since 2008, and the subject joined the show on Coke_Studio_(Pakistani_season_8) in 2015 as a guitarist and keyboardist, and returned for the Coke_Studio_(Pakistani_season_9) in 2016 as a guitarist and Coke_Studio_(Pakistani_season_10) in 2017 as a keyboardist for three consecutive seasons — on the show he has performed alongside one of the biggest names in Pakistan's music industry including: Atif_Aslam, Momina_Mustehsan, Ali_Azmat, his own band Strings (band), and many more. The show is televised and broadcasted on all major Pakistani news/entertainment T.V. channels, and radio stations with new episodes air on weekly basis and reruns air throughout the week, and the show has been viewed in 186 countries across the world Coke_Studio_(Pakistani_TV_program)#Reception, and the musical performances from the show are easily found on YouTube publicly for anyone to watch, hence, there is no doubt whatsoever whether the subject of this article is 'notable' per Wikipedia criteria WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NARTIST, and WP:MUSIC policies or not — the subject is being shown on television right now as we speak. It should also be taken into the consideration that the subject's band Strings (music) and its' (several) members have their own separate articles, therefore, the subject should also be included in the Wiki encyclopedia and have his own article as the sources are cited accordingly, and news coverage the subject has received in the media is overwhelming. In conclusion, I believe this article should be kept, and the nomination for the deletion should be withdrawn in light of the new evidence presented above. Thank you! Alexjnoah (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICIAN. Article reads like a resume with the expected overlinking (and absurd amount of external links) in failed attempt to establish notability. No viable third-party coverage, just the usual downloading sites. Some results were about a cricketer of the same name despite including "Music" in Google search. And good luck getting anyone to read that entire wall of text. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article satisfies WP:MUSICIAN on significant accounts, the lack of knowledge in this discussion about the subject is not a valid reason for deletion, and the article meets the 'notable' per Wikipedia criteria under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NARTIST, and specifically WP:MUSIC policies by a great margin. If the article has had any issues with the way it is written, any editor is free to improve it, that is not a logical reason for deletion, and the article only have a total of two external links just like every article on Wiki encyclopedia. There are at least twenty high quality sources cited in the article that are published by major news outlets in Pakistan, so there should not be a bias whether the news sources are major publications or not, and there is not one downloading site cited as a source in the article, and it is not the subject's fault he has a famous Muslim name, there are many notable people with the same name, therefore, the subject can easily be searched on Google Search by entering "Haider Ali Coke Studio" or "Haider Ali Strings," so it should be taken into consideration that the lack of knowledge about the subject in this discussion does not necessarily mean the subject is lacking notability, and the suggestion that "And good luck getting anyone to read that entire wall of text" sounds quite biased, and violates Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Wikietiquette for using sarcasm, and I believe any and all editors must refrain from such comments, and not be biased one way or the other, and should rather provide sound reasoning and logical arguments using Wiki policies. In conclusion, the article should be kept and the deletion nomination should be withdrawn immediately as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed because the discussion has run its' course for a complete 168 hours with no logical consensus reached. Finally, any one is free to improve the article as they see fit using relevant sources. Thank you! Alexjnoah (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)— Alexjnoah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually the tally this far is five d*elete and one k*eep !votes. Please do not try to close this afd or remove deletions sorting notices again as you are WP:INVOLVED. You have done it twice already and it is time consuming to restore things.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:04, 19 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. SK1 given below developments. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Gress

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Only in-depth piece on him that I have found is the AllMusic review, but a single source does not satisfy the "multiple" part of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself", which is adapted from WP:GNG. There are mentions that he exists in The Guardian and the New York Times etc., but they are trivial at best and lack the depth/significance of coverage required by WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Author) In addition to the Allmusic profile, Gress has an entry in The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz, the most authoritative encyclopedia on the subject of jazz. (A preview of a mirror of the entry can be seen here.) I see no reason why we would not want an encyclopedia article on a subject that has already been found encyclopedia-worthy by subject experts. Meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as an infallible source or infallible "experts" who must be obeyed all the time. Perfection doesn't exist and never will.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources found and identified above. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have extended the article and it now carries inline references to the bylined biographical articles in both Grove and Allmusic as well as some newspaper critical coverage. All of these contribute to demonstrating notability. AllyD (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG met. Not all sources are equal, an inclusion in Grove is a very high indication of notability, in my opinion. A search of newspapers.com also yields coverage, I will be linking clips that can be added. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NMUSICIAN #1. Biographies at AllMusic and Grove, plus other sources on the page (I've added some info from the last Penguin Guide, where he has his own entry). A multitude of reviews, etc is available in specialist magazines. EddieHugh (talk) 19:10, 12 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. There seems to be enough agreement that the sources provided during this discussion establish notability to find this consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam West (band)

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

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The actor is notable. The band is, however, I am afraid, not. The references at the bottom of the page look nice at first glance - however, the "Wammies" pages are not available any more as the domain has been expired. This one looks okay (it's the Washington Post after all, even if it's archived) but it says "To read the full text of this article and others like it, try us out for 7 days, FREE!" F..k you. Sorry. This one is not even available to me as I'm not located in the US. (I really hate when news sites do this). This one - Washington Post again has a column about Adam West, and again it looks okay, although I think it reads a little promotional. I did a Google search and the only reliable source I could find was Allmusic (staff written biography about the band). I am not convinced of this site's reliability. It has a rather blog/forum/fan site-like feel to me. I have also found this interview in German, however, interviews aren't considered reliable as I have learned (they still count as reliable on huwiki though). The rest of the Google search are the standard trash sites like youtube, discogs, spirit of metal (or spirit of rock in this case), rate your music, spotify and concert sites. And again, there are lots and lots of results that are just the words separated / they are about the actor Adam West, not the band. I also searched for some of their albums and I couldn't find anything other than the usual streaming links, youtube videos, databases and retail sites. So with all that being said, I think they are not notable. Thoughts? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This one's a surprise because I saw this band live a few times long ago. They got some notice, including a few very lucky reviews in Washington Post and there is an AllMusic profile, showing that they rose a little above total obscurity. Of course, any attempted search under the band's name will result in stuff about the actor, but searching in conjunction with frontman Jake Starr leads to a few more minor reviews. Admittedly it's not much but perhaps enough for a basic stub article. A lot of fancruft needs to be removed though. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 00:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: Er...well, the only things I found when I searched with "Adam West Jake Starr" were databases, streaming links and retail sites. Anyways I was surprised too they got reviews in WaPo, I have never thought that such a major newspaper covered this little-known band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostDestroyer100: - One thing I've noticed, at least in MY searches for info on obscure bands whenever we do this, is that the lame streaming and retail sites tend to appear near the top of the search results because that is what people use these days. Sometimes you have to dig deeper in the results list, and if something is on page 10 that does not mean it is less important than something on page 1. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 22:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: Yeah I know. It annoys me frankly. Every time I search for a band, notable or not, the first few results are the lame streaming service entries, social media pages, retail sites and databases. Why aren't the more important, more usable sources are at the top? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found an Allmusic bio and a brief review, couple of Washington Post articles, two album reviews in German magazine Rock Hard ([9], [10]), and coverage in a few books - not a huge amount but surely there will be more coverage offline, particularly from the 90s. --Michig (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: Oh! I did not know Rock Hard reviewed their albums too. I've found the Allmusic bio and the WaPo articles though. I will add them to the article and then we're fine. I don't know why Google did not return these Rock Hard album reviews to me. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 17 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) 23:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Electricity Cup

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

Pre-season tournaments do not have inherent notability. This does have some coverage in reliable secondary sources [11] [12] [13] but I believe it to be too brief to pass WP:GNG. I'm interested to hear people's views on this one. Spiderone 17:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Where it appears in the four player/manager articles that link to this article it is unsourced, and there is no mention of it in the articles about teams that have won it. EdwardUK (talk) 17:04, 12 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) 23:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Junior Cup

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

This competition doesn't seem to have quite enough notability for a stand-alone article. Does have some coverage [14] [15] but, in my view, not quite enough to pass WP:GNG. Interested to hear others' thoughts. Spiderone 17:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Shahoodu (talk) 19:16, 17 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. JGHowes ^talk 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Gartman

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks reliable sources. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a myspace mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert and WP:MUSICBIO. I wish to concur in that AllMusic can be used as a source, but not the only source, for a musician's bio. In 2006, this would be excused, but in 2020, Myspace is derelict and everybody knows we are not primarily a social media website. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was created in 2006, and like much of what was put on Wikipedia then has not been much updated in meaningful ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 12:43, 17 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Minor Hurling Championship

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

Does not appear to be a notable competition. "London Minor Hurling Championship" with quotation marks gained zero hits on Google News. The article describes it as a competition for under 18s but gives no assertion of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Might even be a candidate for speedy deletion. Spiderone 17:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Under-18 hurling in London. Nothing turns up in searches. Nigej (talk) 19:11, 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Minor Football Championship

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

Does not appear to be a notable competition. "London Minor Football Championship" with quotation marks gained zero hits on Google News. The article describes it as a competition for under 18s but gives no assertion of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Might even be a candidate for speedy deletion. Spiderone 17:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would have simply given this a PROD but it looks like it has had one before. Spiderone 17:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Under-18 gaelic football in London. Nothing interesting turns up in searches. Nigej (talk) 19:09, 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 keep. IAR . There is no way this article would or should be deleted, coupled with questions re: the nom. StarM 00:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zarifa Sautieva

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

This article does not meet the relevance criteria for the English Wikipedia. Such articles were created en masse in many Wikipedia, this is PR. -- Кав0606 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I finished the creation of this following a post on my talkpage by what I assume is the creator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there do seem to be a lot of sources dedicated to her provided in the article. Is Caucasian Knot not a reliable source? Spiderone 17:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Кав0606 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vexations (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the creation of this AfD is their first and (so far) only edit using this editor name. Strange. PamD 11:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BBC calls her "the most famous woman in Ingushetia". Vexations (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - covered in numerous reliable sources; the coverage is in-depth and there is nothing to suggest that the sources are not reliable [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Spiderone 20:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: appears to be the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. PamD 11:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Absolutely notable and the references/sources listed are reliable, reputable and verifiable, if you can translate Russian. That is outside what other international sources have stated about her including the BBC. I think additional international sources would be beneficial but are not necessary to prove her notability. Simply put, she passes WP:GNG. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As background, I started the article as part of a Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/162 which was themed on the Caucasus region. It was not created "en masse". She meets notability criteria. (Lajmmoore (talk) 08:45, 13 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. czar 00:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel, Kentucky

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

There are lots of places with Bethel in the name in Rennick's index, but only two are in Calloway County (county code 21035 is the identifier): a church and a cemetery. Topographic maps show Bethel Church and Bethel Cemetery, with no markings suggesting a community (later topos also show a Bethel Road). For those using newspapers.com to search for this: All of the hits suggesting a community seem to be for a Bethel in Bath County, which Rennick identifies as a populated place. Narrowing searches to Calloway County brings up a handful of brief mentions of the church and cemetery in obituaries. The church/cemetery fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GEOFEAT, the road fails WP:GEOROAD, and the coverage fails WP:GNG. Since Wikipedia is not a directory of churches and cemeteries, this fails all relevant notability guidelines. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Everything says this was just the church the maps show. Mangoe (talk) 03:09, 14 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. czar 23:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Five Points, Kentucky

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

Rennick calls it a neighborhood within Murray, Kentucky and states that No particular commu., as such. ever existed there It's apparently near the campus of Murray State University. The only coverage I can find is a few briefs mentions on newspapers.com and Google books refer to Five Points as an area, without giving any further details. Subdivisions and neighborhoods and such fall afoul of WP:GEOLAND #2, so it would have to pass WP:GNG, which it doesn't seem to. The only significant coverage I can find is a highway planning report for an intersection in Murray named Five Points, although there are a few brief mentions of a Five Points or Five-points intersection. As a neighborhood/intersection, this fails WP:GEOLAND, and WP:GNG is not met. Given that it is not mention in either the Murray, Kentucky or Murray State articles, a redirect would not be helpful. A merge would also not be helpful, as the sole content of the article is a claim that it is a separate community, which is false. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete topos go back far enough to show that, yes, this area got named when Murray expanded out this far. It's just a neighborhood/city area. Mangoe (talk) 01:59, 15 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. czar 23:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Halfway, Calloway County, Kentucky

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

Not mentioned in Rennick's Calloway County directory, and the only Halfways or Half Ways in his index are in other counties. Does not appear on topographic maps, Rennick's annotated topo has "Halfway N" written on it, with no indication as to what that it suppose to signify. I've searched on Google books, newspapers.com, and Google itself, and I'm only getting results for Halfway, Allen County, Kentucky. Given that whatever this is/was cannot even be determined as to type, it seems to fail just about every relevant notability guideline. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 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 as G12. Jackmcbarn (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse Me Madam

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:FICT. No independent coverage apart from press releases. ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- Sourcing definitely needs to be improved but it is a nationally broadcast series that is currently airing. Sunshine1191 (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTV, which says that nationally broadcast television shows are likely to meet notability standards. I added a review from The Times of India, "Excuse Me Madam first-episode review: Rajesh Kumar and Nyra Banerjee show looks promising with laugh-worthy moments". I don't see a problem here. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:46, 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 delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E/i

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA and WP:NORG. Short lived niche publication/ezine with no claims of notability, no reliable sources, no SIGCOV Rogermx (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourcing in the article currently consists of primary sources and passing mentions in unreliable sources, meaning that this magazine fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:20, 15 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anas (rapper)

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

It has a few sources about the person, and not enough for notability. I couldn't find any sources on search. Ahmetlii (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Charitably it is too soon for a Wikipedia article. His debut album really did reach the lower rungs of the French chart, but he seems to have received no reliable media notice otherwise. So far he can only be found in the typical streaming and self-promotional sites. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 00:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This may be TOOSOON, but right now there is not direct and indepth SIGCOV to meet guidelines. WP should strictly follow guidelines for notability and sourcing for BLPs. // Timothy :: talk 07:56, 13 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 Johannes Schuyler Jr.. Given what a merge means there can obviously also be information merged to Schuyler family but Johannes seems to have more marginally more support as a redirect target. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelia van Cortlandt

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

When I initially came across this article, I got really excited, because I really wanted it to turn out to be notable. However, try as I might, I cannot find any coverage besides "she was the wife of X" "she was the mother of Y" or "she was related to Z", which doesn't make her notable (per WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:NOTINHERITED). There's a brief bit of coverage here and here, and similar things across the web, but I'm afraid none of it establishes notability outside of her family. A redirect to Schuyler family seems to be in order. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an egregious violation of not geneology guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate target. While not notable in her own right, the information is useful for context about one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Johannes Schuyler Jr.: and removed the genealogy // Timothy :: talk 03:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyBlue If it's going to be merged anywhere, I'd reckon that Schuyler family would be a better target. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891, That's a viable option. I was thinking Johannes because she entered the Schuyler family through him. When you remove the genealogy cruft, there isn't much left, I don't think this is a viable search term for a redirect. I think, as you state, I want this to be notable and am searching, but the rationale is paper-thin. // Timothy :: talk 12:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into either Johannes Schuyler Jr. or Schuyler family. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Johannes Schuyler Jr., looking at the Schuyler family article I reckon that her husband is a better merge target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect as suggested in last 2 contributions. I see nothing notable about her career, apart from genealogical issues (which are themselves NN). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 18 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Sab Chor Hain (1973 film)

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2008. The article lacks a plot summary; and a WP:BEFORE search failed to find one; only the usual selection of listings sites, and offers to sell (or more dubiously, for a film still in copyright, to share) the film or songs from it. I found nothing RS about this film. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.

Note. If this article goes, DAB page Hum Sab Chor Hain will be redundant; and Ham Sab Chor Hain (1995 film) should be retitled to Hum Sab Chor Hain by a WP:ROBIN swap per WP:PRECISE. Narky Blert (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is also a 1956 film by this name which was perhaps more notable (mentions such as "K. Shorey's early films starring the fatty Meena and some of I. S. Johar's better comedies like " Hum Sab Chor Hain "", "Johar then turned director and scripted two other noteworthy comedies – Shrimati Ji (1952) and Hum Sab Chor Hain (1956) – both of which were Filmistan productions."). I see both mentions of 1971 or 1973 as release date for the movie by Maruti. It's mentioned here [21], [22], [23] (p. 145). Notably it appears to have been marketed by another name 'The Criminals'. --Soman (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman: The 1956 film is mentioned (but not redlinked) in List of Bollywood films of 1956, I. S. Johar. Shammi Kapoor and Nalini Jaywant at least. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, but the contributions by several notable people make me think there could well be enough about the film itself to support an article. Narky Blert (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources added, page moved to its original title in the film; alternative name (The Criminals) added as well. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources there now. MelvinHans (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable film.† Encyclopædius 15:44, 15 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) 00:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saiee Manjrekar

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

An article on this person was deleted at AfD in January. Subsequently there was a redirect to the main film in which she has appeared, and a couple of reverts of attempts to add article text before the current article instance was developed. There has been more press coverage, though mainly announcement PR-based, pieces about working with her famous parents, about signing for her next film, etc. Cyphoidbomb's rationale in the first AfD nomination still looks to hold, but I am bringing this back to AfD in case others evaluate her notability differently now. AllyD (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough has changed since January to justify recreating the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still feels rather premature to have an article about this subject. Looking at references from the last few months, most appear to be press junket-style content to promote the film Major. So much of it contains brief snippets of information supplemented by interview quotes. Thus, not independent, and not in depth coverage of the subject herself. Redirecting might be a way to go on the assumption that she could become notable down the road, but with Indian audiences currently responding poorly to people who have benefited from nepotism, (see Sadak 2 trailer info), as Manjrekar has, she may have a struggle ahead. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 12 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 Anitta (album). (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Som do Coração

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

An article about an album track (which, according to the article, was bootlegged). All six citations are unusable for one reason or another. The corresponding Portuguese article, pt:Som do Coração, includes one citation which gives the song a passing mention. A WP:BEFORE search turned up the words on well over 20 lyrics sites, but nothing about the song even as detailed as that passing mention. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anitta (album) per WP:CHEAP. It initially looks like there's reviews of the song on Google but AFAICS they're all actually reviews of August Rush, which was released in Brazil as O Som do coração. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (nom) per AP as {{R from song}} (I should have suggested that myself). Better than deletion, aids searching, enables population of categories. Narky Blert (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery D. Long

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

Not notable. The sourcing of this BLP is extremely weak, consisting of a) texts by Long, b) the directory of his workplace, Elizabethtown College, c) a general link to FindArticles.com, and d) a non-critical review, or description, of one of Long's books, by "Elizabethtown College" (?), which ends in a puff for Elizabethtown College. Trying to find some reliable secondary sources online, I could locate only a positive review in Swarajya (magazine), a somewhat notorious right-wing journal which is blacklisted on Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 14:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The cite count on Scholar looks a little wonky to me. I suspect that the cites for his contribution to The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy cover the citations for every chapter in the book, not just his individual chapter. So I'd be inclined to disregard that particular paper for purposes of WP:NPROF#C1. (Although being asked to write a chapter for an Oxford handbook always seems like good evidence that one is viewed as an authority.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Jainism: An Introduction looks to be his most important book, but I could only find one review of it and one highly-cited book is probably not enough for WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. Couldn't find reviews for his other books either. I know citation counts aren't super helpful for a discipline like religious studies, but without reviews there doesn't seem like a good case for either of the two relevant SNGs. (It initially looks like Historical Dictionary of Hinduism gets lots of reviews, but all the reviews I saw were for a different edition (or perhaps different book entirely) edited by Bruce M. Sullivan.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Theology is a very low-cited area and I think this one just passes WP:NPROFC#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete per AP above, and per nom. I cannot find any substantive independent sourcing, and it's very clear he doesn't pass GNG. I do not see his work having had sufficient impact to meet WP:PROF, either, but it's a little fuzzier there. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with AleatoryPonderings that the Oxford handbook chapter citations appear to be erroneous -- I examined a few of the papers listed by GS as citing, and did not see any citations whatsoever of the handbook (even to other chapters). However, the citations of Jainism: An Introduction seem to be genuine, and there are a moderate number of citations to other articles. In a very low citation field, this is starting to look like a borderline pass of WP:NPROF C1. I was surprised not to find more reviews of the subject's books, but both Jainism: An Introduction and Historical Dictionary of Hinduism are held by 1400+ libraries according to WorldCat; I think this helps support the weak NPROF case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at the moment - but I might change to delete if clear evidence of notability can't be provided. The citations from his own books need to come out pronto. Deb (talk) 09:52, 12 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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Award for Best Classic DVD

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

Fails notability guidelines for events, with a tag stating so that has been in place for 3 years. Balle010 (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm failing to see how this is different than other than other Satellite Awards. Category:Satellite Awards Dream Focus 09:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors commenting should supply guideline and policy to provide weight to their arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - unsourced, but seems to stand out just as much as the other awards. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:32, 12 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Szabolcs I. Ferencz

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

Accomplished, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Reads like a resume. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create

Delete - nothing more than passing mentions; also WP:NOTLINKEDIN Spiderone 10:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBIO. There may be enough notability for an article on the company but just not enough in-depth coverage for a stand alone article. Policy directs that presenting an article as a resume is What Wikipedia is not.

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2002–03 Yeovil Town F.C. season

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

A decent article, but it fails WP:NSEASONS. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NSEASONS states that "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements" (my emphasis). It doesn't state that a season outside of a top professional league MUST NOT be created. This article is well written with plenty of prose, and would surely meet WP:GNG, and could possibly be a GA contender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in comparsion, I looked at some of the other 2002/03 articles linked from the footer, and pages such as 2002–03 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. season and 2002–03 West Ham United F.C. season are pretty terrible, with them mainly being a stats-dump. But because they are Div1/Div2 teams, they get to be kept. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has a lot of refs but 95% are either BBC reports or posts at the clubs website. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the BBC not a reliable source? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its reliable, but ideally a article should have sources from more then just a couple of websites. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - meets the NSEASONS criteria in the sense that it satisfies "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose", however, a lot of the sourcing is just routine match reports and/or primary sources Spiderone 15:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what is significant here, where is the coverage? Yes the prose is well-written, but it's 90% match reports. Giant Snowman 16:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Championship winning season and extremely well source! I would say GNG is met. @GiantSnowman: Do you not think that winning the league and being promoted back to the Football League not significant?? Govvy (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying every non-league team gets a season article when they win a title? Giant Snowman 18:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - surely passes GNG as a notable season that was not only the club's promotion winning season to the Football League after 108 years as a non-league club but also broke a number of records winning the league by a then record points margin and unbeaten home season. Ytfc23 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 09:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the match reports provide SIGCOV, meaning that this article passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written article about professional team playing at the national level who were top in their league, gaining promotion. I don't see any indication that NSEASONS wasn't met. That aside, article is well referenced and promotion to League 2 provides GNG coverage. Nfitz (talk) 23:08, 18 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) 14:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Schumacher

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Does not appear to have garnered any WP:SIGCOV during his career as a referee. Outside of that, he was President of Referees in England for a short while as evidenced by the source in the article. He also appears to be mentioned here [24]. I'm not convinced that this is enough.

PROD contested but no reason provided. The concern was failing WP:GNG. Spiderone 11:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone:There are a secondary source placed, what must be other in there??? must we convince you for create articles???Almgerdeu (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. I'll be honest, a very large number of the other articles that you have created don't look to meet GNG either. I have simply tagged them as a GNG concern for now rather than putting a PROD on them. I would strongly recommend you read Wikipedia:Articles for creation and Wikipedia:Drafts. It might be good to build some articles in the draft space and gather those reliable secondary sources before putting the article in the mainspace to avoid people questioning their notability. Spiderone 12:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - referees who officiate at a high level are not automatically notable, and there is no significant coverage meaning GNG is not met. Giant Snowman 16:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a relatively simple before search and could not find anything apart from directories, though I'd be happy to change my !vote if other coverage is found. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are more more articles about referees in wikipedia as you said (as this article)...so why only this article must delete??? but i want to create more articles abut referees (i want left more more red links)Almgerdeu (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, referees aren't inherently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 13 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. Cabayi (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Old Boys' Amateur Football League

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

Fails WP:GNG; struggling to even find passing mentions let alone WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 10:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - low-level amateur league of local interest at best and probably not even much of that. If it's the same as the similar league in my area, then the only coverage it receives consists of brief reports in the local paper (sent in by the league secretary) which jostle for space on the inside pages with the local senior citizens' bowls league and pub darts league..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local interest only. Nigej (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 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 delete. Cabayi (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North East Norfolk League

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

Fails WP:GNG; no WP:SIGCOV found in a search Spiderone 10:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - low-level amateur league of local interest at best and probably not even much of that. If it's the same as the similar league in my area, then the only coverage it receives consists of brief reports in the local paper (sent in by the league secretary) which jostle for space on the inside pages with the local senior citizens' bowls league and pub darts league..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - interest in this in north-east Norfolk but nowhere else I suspect. Nigej (talk) 19:34, 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 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. czar 23:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Yadav

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

Non-notable actor. Only four credits listed of which two are cameos and two are small supporting roles. Sourced by only one ref. Failed WP:NACTOR. Sunshine1191 (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ján Bízik

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

Contested PROD "1-His officiated 1 international match was enough for notability as became BIO article such as football player which notable with play at least a international match (even friendly). 2- There are a lot articles in wikipedia as this article (with database sources or without newspaper sources"

Original concern was that the article fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 09:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - referees who officiate at a high level are not automatically notable, and there is no significant coverage meaning GNG is not met. Giant Snowman 16:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 1 match is not enough. Geschichte (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but there are moreeee articles about referes as this article....Almgerdeu (talk) 15:57, 12 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) 14:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bertil Ahlfors

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

PROD removed with the reason "1-His officiated 3 international matches were enough for notability as became BIO article such as football player which notable with play at least a international match (even friendly). 2- There are a lot articles in wikipedia as this article (with database sources or without newspaper sources".

I gave the PROD because I was concerned about WP:GNG and I still feel that this referee doesn't pass. Spiderone 09:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - referees who officiate at a high level are not automatically notable, and there is no significant coverage meaning GNG is not met. Giant Snowman 16:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but there are a lot articles about referees in wikipedia as this article...why this article must delete??? this is a dual approach, not????Almgerdeu (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Almgerdeu: If you feel that there are articles on referees that do not meet the guidelines then please make improvements so that they do and, if sources don't exist to do so, please put them up for deletion as per WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Spiderone 16:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: No I dont want to put them AFD or PROD...first of all respect to work, second I want to learn that why you (maybe others) apply wikipedia rules to some articles from absolutely technically same articles????

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Ebba

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

A previous article about this actor was deleted at AfD in 2017. Since then, the subject has played another role so CSD G4 may not be applicable for this new instance, hence this new AfD. The present article (the first by a new editor) is little more than a list of roles, supported by poor references to listing sites. My searches are finding no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that any of these were significant roles in a major production. They pretty much all are insignificant, minor roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still WP:TOOSOON - guest appearances do not automatically make one a notable actor. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 13 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. czar 23:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theofficialbron

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

Not notable. The only ref that isn't his own website or iTunes is "Vents Magazine", where the post is written by "MyitSolutions", an obvious spammer. The only other coverage I found was an interview at a blacklisted site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly per nom. WP:G11 is tempting given the tone and sourcing... ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional and of course subject is not notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is notable and has music made with notable musicians. Subject is also very well known on his social media platforms. He is featured on 3 different google news approved websites and has his own website.Bigtimeinmytown (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sooner, the better. Mercy11 (talk) 02:50, 12 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. Because of the extent that this AfD has been infested by sockpuppets, I'm only counting opinions by established editors. Among them, I'm counting 10 keep and 22 delete opinions. As to the arguments presented, the "keep" side thinks that the topic is notable and quality problems can be remedied by editing. The "delete" side does not dispute the topic's notability, but thinks that a rewrite from scratch is needed.

This is not an easy call, but on balance, I think that the "delete" arguments enjoy rough consensus, both numerically and in terms of their quality. They go to some length detailing the quality problems of this article. In response to this, many (though by far not all) "keep" opinions merely reply "but it's notable", which is beside the point given that this is not in dispute. The "keep" side would instead have needed to show that the alleged quality problems either don't exist or can be relatively easily fixed by editing; and most of them did not attempt to make this argument.

In order to enforce the present consensus (which allows a more competent recreation), I'm limiting recreation to extended confirmed users. Sandstein 11:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

AfDs for this article:

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article has been through the ringer as you can see from previous AfDs. Is it possible that an article should exist on this subject? Well, the topic is batted around like a football and has been for some time. Most recently, a New York Times columnist has been called out (or called in) for reinvigorating this subject: [25][26][27]. This is why the subject is notable. Will you find this in the present article? No. More on why that is later, but suffice to say the article is completely skewed to a claim that there is a controversy over nature versus nurture here which is a much bandied-about focusing that misses the real thing going on: eugenics and racism dominating these discussions. Now, AfD is not WP:CLEANUP, but there are rare cases where WP:TNT is needed. This is one.

What should an article on this subject entail? It should entail mostly a focus on the intelligence of Ashkenazi Jewish people and all WP:PROMINENT discussions of such. I've pointed to what these are above, but our article is some sort of pseudo-academic jaunt through fringe literature as promulgated by the IDW-sorts and the evo-psychs. Meanwhile, nary a hint is here that the true context of this is antisemitism. The article is here to wave a flag: such discussions of race and intelligence cannot possibly be race realist in the WP:NONAZI sense because look at who benefits at this article? *wink*, *wink*

But antisemitism is antisemitism whether it is dressed up as "positive" comments or not [28] So here we are flubbing about with an article that is currently being babysat by an extremely suspicious account that arrived on the scene somewhat recently and fails the sniff test by my measure. I do not make this charge lightly. This is someone who is out to skew Wikipedia towards some rather political ends. You just need to look at their contributions to see this.

So it's time to start all over. We can write an article on this subject, but it should be draftified first. It should be worked on by good-faith contributors. And this thing as it exists needs to be removed from article-space pronto. jps (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna do a 180 and say support. This way, we can build the article up from scratch with reliable sources; its current state of back-to-back low-intensity edit warring provides little utility. (By the way, to paraphrase Tywin Lannister, anyone who must say "I do not make X charge lightly" usually makes X charge lightly. Might wanna work a little on your optics there. Also, WP:ADHOMINEM.) Iroh (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My next step is to ask for a topic ban for you from WP:AE. But first things first. jps (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haha, that's cute. Anyway, maybe we should name the new article Ashkenazi Jewish successes, seeing as a lot of the content is about Ashkenazi accomplishments, related to but not measuring intelligence directly. Seriously though, talking about topic banning people is not constructive. I don't want to topic ban you. Iroh (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I have to say, I don't understand why you're bringing up WP:NONAZI - you don't know the Nazis actively suppressed research that showed Ashkenazim were more intelligent on average than ethnic Germans? Hitler would've hated this article! Iroh (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. The page creator appears to have taken a premise and cobbled together "facts" to support it. Some "key" points are dubious or unsourced. Not to mention that the whole topic smacks of racism. Yoninah (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page has had 679 editors and so naturally suffers from the weaknesses of our wiki process: "too many cooks spoil the broth"; "a camel is a horse designed by a committee";&c. "

Keep The subject is notable. The fact alone that everybody "knows" that Ashkenazi Jews are intelligent, is enough reason to have an article about it. The high number of sources in such a small article also points to this. If the article in its present state is not good enough, then any editor can turn it into a stub with just a few lines, and wait for it to be rewritten in a better way, but deletion is not how to go about it. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The extensive number of previous nominations indicates that a further nomination will not be productive – see WP:DELAFD which states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The topic is clearly notable. For example, see Smart Jews: The Construction of the Image of Jewish Superior Intelligence which was written by a distinguished professor and published by a university press. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing and so our editing policy applies, especially the bits about imperfection and the need to preserve the content. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete precisely per Yoninah. Pace Andrew, notability is not the primary policy concern here. Surely the topic is notable. Rather, the policy concerns are WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, and WP:FRINGE. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable, people disliking something is not reason for deletion. Its neither a fringe nor a pov issue in any way. It just offends some people clearly.★Trekker (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To all the keep voters: The problem here is that a couple of editors consistently on the one hand remove essential content covered by Ferguson, acting as a secondary source for Cochran et al., and on the other hand remove "non-primary source needed" tags to primary-source-only content by Ferguson. (These two were by far the article's most cited sources.) In other words, they wish to eat their cake and have it, too. When I bring this up on the article talk page, they refuse to even address it (apart from one of them admitting that they hadn't even read the Ferguson paper and for some reason was under the false impression that I hadn't, either.) That is the main reason I belive it may after all be best to delete this article and build a new one up from scratch. Iroh (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AleatoryPonderings and Yoninah, who have said pretty much what I was going to. Sometimes, fixing an article would require jacking up the title and running a new page under it. I am doubtful that any methods short of deletion have a shot at being effective (stubbification will just invite revert wars, etc.). The nomination implicitly makes a good case that the article should be retitled as well as rebuilt, so that nothing would be preserved. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not crazy about the idea of using AfD as a way to settle content disputes. Anybody can rewrite the page any time they want: just open the editor, blank the existing content, and start typing. Unfortunately, the same editors will still be involved, so it won't actually solve the problem that you're trying to solve. If the problem is that an individual needs to be topic-banned, then go and do that. I'm not voting keep, because I may be missing something important, but currently I see a difficult situation that this process is not designed to improve. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toughpigs, I take it that the purpose of the nom (although ජපස is free to correct me here) is not to settle content disputes. It's not that there's a particular dispute to settle. Rather, it's that the page history is irretrievably tainted with WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH, and POV-laden content that will inevitably be reverted even if someone restarts the page from scratch without deletion. That's the WP:TNT argument, at any rate—not that there is a specific content dispute, but rather that the content as a whole is unredeemable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem is that two editors assume bad faith and refuse to cooperate with me. Perhaps more editors would get involved in contributing to--not just commenting on--an entirely new article. Other editors have agreed with me but are not (as) active in editing this article. It is also noteworthy that the content these two editors keep reverting has constituted the bulk of the article for years. Iroh (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unsure, but the pro-Delete reasoning here convinced me. The article is a hodgepodge of everything loosely connected to the subject, some of it fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Then createprotect it (and Ashkenazi intelligence) so only an extended confirmed user can remake the page. This is per the reasonings laid out by jps. No editor should be expected to reformat such degrading WP:POV content in order to make this page at least passingly acceptable. This is one of those few and rare cases that starting from scratch (WP:TNT) would be a lot easier than working with existing material. I struggle to find even a single sentence worth maintaining in its current form. It's all vague pseudoscience talking about average IQs as if they are the end-all-be-all of intelligence. It also focuses way too much on Ashkenazim who live in the United States despite half of the Ashkenazi Jewish population living elsewhere.
It's time to toss this article in the bin. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seems to be no dispute that the topic is notable. If editors are being disruptive to editing (and there does need to be some editing, particularly of speculation in the "Proposed explanations" section), WP:AE is that way. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This may be a bit of wikilawyering, but I feel it ought to be said that WP:N is a guideline, whereas WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH/WP:OR are policies. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/WP:TNT - A lot of reasons for this. For one, it was mainly a coatrack for promoting a single very WP:FRINGE theory by Henry Harpending (a eugenicist with ties to white supremacist groups) and Gregory Cochran (who's otherwise known for proposing that homosexuality is caused by an unknown virus). We also have appearances by Richard Lynn, Charles Murray (political scientist), and J. Philippe Rushton which should ring a lot of alarm bells. My attempts at cleaning this up prompted some of the recent activity. The topic may or may not be notable, but the article isn't doing the topic any justice. If the article only exists to explain why a debunked study is not even wrong, then is should be rewritten to serve that goal. Any explanation of this larger topic would also have to start fresh, and would have to be based on high quality sources, similar to restrictions placed on race and intelligence. Grayfell (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This topic is definitely notable. If the artucle had issues, a concerted effort should be made to fix those issues rather than delete the article outright. Ibn Daud (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, having no article would be better than having this crap. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per unclear notability, as well as WP:TNT. The article is mostly WP:SYNTH, tying together tangentially related bits of information to, apparently, promote a fringe theory. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as before. The topic has not magically become "un-notable". Hold as many RfCs and noticeboardings as necessary to clean it up and remove problem parties from the topic area (which is already under discretionary sanctions. Have the allegedly problematic parties received {{Ds/alert|r-i}} templates on their talk pages within the last 12 months? The fact that it's a controversial topic is irrelevant; it's a real-world controversy, not an internal editorial one. As I've noted in related discussions many times, a failure by WP to properly cover topics relating to racialist claims about nebulous ideas like "intelligence" effectively cedes the entire topic to far-right supremacist kook websites. We have an ethical responsibility to cover these topics (properly). Readers are certainly turning to the encyclopedia for answers about them. The article being imperfect is irrelevant; see WP:SURMOUNTABLE. The fact that patrolling these articles for PoV pushing, bogus sourcing, and other problems is a challenge is also irrelevant; that's true of all controversial topics. We have processes for this. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As I tried to make clear, the argument I am making is not that this topic is "unnotable" (though others may have legitimate arguments to that effect, I'll leave it to them to defend). The argument is that the way this topic is treated is so inveterately problematic and has been so inveterately problematic for essentially fifteen years, that we need something to break this juggernot. Yes, the parties have received DS alerts. We absolutely have an ethical responsibility to cover these things properly. This is why the existence of this article, visible to Google Juice, is such a problem right now. It is not about the article being "imperfect". It's about the article being so miserably awful that it needs to be completely removed. I understand that this is not normally how things proceed at this website, but this is a particularly egregious situation and we need some better solutions than what have been tried before. Thus the proposal to draftify, come up with an article that we can be proud to show to the internet, and then, hopefully, lowering the temperature enough so that we have something that works is what I'm talking about. Speaking of processes, WP:TNT is drastic, but it is a WP process that works. I have seen it work. jps (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP that apparently prompted your participation in this discussion is topic-banned from race and intelligence, which you have already agreed is still in effect. Even without all this backstory, this would be WP:CANVASSING. The IP was topic banned for causing excessive and legalistic drama on Wikipedia in support of a specific form of scientific racism. The IP's comments on your talk page have poisoned the well for your participation here, which is why you should stop encouraging them to discuss this. Regardless of your intentions, participating in this discussion based on the IP's comments disrupts the project and makes consensus harder. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my ignorance/poor memory of history: Is this IP topic banned from all discussion of RI across the entire wiki? If no, we might want to request that as his ongoing activity is very problematic. jps (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First the IP was blocked, and then the editor was banned here, without a specific time-frame. Based on responses to my recent comment at ANI it appears there is consensus that it was an indefinite topic ban. The IP has attempted to derail the discussion with conspiracy theory nonsense and aspersions, which is partly why they were banned/blocked in the first place. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because a theory is pseudo-scientific doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. There's a Wikipedia article about the Nazi ideology, does it mean that it's true? Obviously not, but those views exist, they have a name, and therefore, the article. Maxim.il89 (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable topic. This is more or less a redux of the AFD we had at Race and intelligence earlier this year; c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination). We have a cycle repeating itself here. A number of Wikipedia editors are ideologically opposed to the (almost certainly true) notion that there are differences in the mean and distribution in cognitive abilities (i.e. "intelligence") between various ethnic and racial groups. The first step in this cycle is to bury any evidence that's been collected to support this notion and brand anyone that's been doing such collection and reporting a fringe neo-Nazi. When step one encounters opposition, an AFD is launched. This charade needs to end. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the "almost certainly true" needs a ^{[citation needed]}. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It only requires logic. The chance of it being false is vanishingly small, like the chance that members of every ethnic/racial group have made the same number of edits on Wikipedia per capita. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is classic IDW whinging (which I see, from your social media accounts, that you firmly adhere to). The position is so specious as to be laughable and borderline disconfirming for contributing to Wikipedia in these areas per WP:CIR. To illustrate, it would be equally jejune and racist to declare that it is "almost certainly true" that there are differences in the mean and distribution of humor between various ethnic and racial groups. Since there is no well-ordered and validated method to quantify humor or intelligence, any claims about distributions of these characteristics are either ignorantly or intentionally ideological. jps (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blank slant denialism / mythology probably ought to be CIR for this top area. I suspect there probably are meaningful differences in capacity for humor between various ethnic and racial groups, but we surely don't have the tools for measuring humor like we do for general intelligence (verbal, mathematical, and analytical reasoning). What's interesting to note is that your quip about "IDW whinging" and references to my social media accounts would probably be considered a personal attack by the regular admins around here if the political polarity of the volley was reversed leftward instead of rightward to the liberal center. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have tools for measuring intelligence because there is no identified agreement as to its definition let alone what metric is validated. I stand by my assessment of your competence in assessing such matters. jps (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to engage this sort of absurd denialism, I encourage you do take it your own blog, where you should be free to write about it endlessly. But your ideological effort here is degrading Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only persons who are driven by ideology here are those insisting that the WP:MAINSTREAM assessment is wrong and Sam Harris's podcast is so right that we ought to make him US President. jps (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/WP:TNT per Grayfell's arguments above, and also all the arguments for Delete by all the other users. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH. NightHeron (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several policies listed above, but the biggest thing is that it is pretty much just a pop-science-synth-fest. What is notable should be elsewhere, what is verifiable should be elsewhere. The point made above by JWeiss11 is relevant to this discussion however; we do have a larger article Race and Intelligence that survived an AfD (four so far) but the summary of the judgement seems to have fundamentally missed the point. The deletion aspect focused on the inappropriateness of the format, but the summary focused on the fact "content" is not a policy decision so long as its verifiable and notable. In fact the rejection of the AfD makes sense on that article in terms of dealing with the broader context of the subject of "Race of Intelligence" which is in and of itself encapsulated in about a half dozen other topics. In contrast the subject of Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence is almost entirely framed from the perspective of speculative fringe theories wedged together to create a massive case of SYNTH. Even if retained, the article should be cut back drastically to the topic, and not speculation (or the article needs to reframe itself entirely). Koncorde (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This discussion isn't about whether the topic is notable, it is about whether the article should be nuked and recreated, I agree with JPS that the article as is, is inadequate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/TNT As others have pointed out, this needs to be rewritten from scratch. –dlthewave ☎ 02:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. And this is the 8th new try to garner a delete vote. As the article seem to have had 6 more deletion nomination under its earlier name "Ashkenazi Intelligence". Rewritting isn't the issue. As this all comes from multiple dedicated Wikipedians trying to fight to have their own version of the article. Deletion is just trying to remove any older consensus to get a new version that some prefer. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jazi Zilber: this AFD nomination is not based on notability. It is based on WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV. Yoninah (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's pedantic for me to point out, but this is actually the 7th deletion vote. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (6th nomination) is a redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KeepLeft-wing people want to delete the article because these informations especially genetic causation of high ashkenazi intelligence goes against their egalitarian ideology. 195.244.166.33 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Sockpuppet vote[reply]
Keep This discussion is non-sense. Only communists would love to delete it. GreenTeaExtracts (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC) — GreenTeaExtracts (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
Keep No reasons to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopamineagonist (talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC) — GreenTeaExtracts (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
Keep Activism to censor taboo subject Realityistoblame (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)— GreenTeaExtracts (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]

Keep IQ is an important subject Vickerus (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. Important for who/what? It is a social measure that is really non-scientific, in my view, and I wouldn't even consider utilizing it for any serious social purposes, if I had any say at all in the policies of any serious, non-commercial organization. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-scientific? There are thousands of studies on the effect of IQ in endless settings. How is that not scientific?

Important in that it is strongly correlated with multiple life outcomes (earning, marriage, happiness, everything).

The only non-scientific points are mostly the anti IQ ones AFAIK. Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is entirely beside the point of whether this article should be kept or deleted. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings is correct. I just want to point out that this should be rewritten strictly as a socio-economic, cultural and historical article, as the last argument before it correctly underscores: "it is strongly correlated with multiple life outcomes (earning, marriage, happiness, everything)." There is absolutely nothing genetic or racial whatsoever in any of these elements, and any attempt to introduce these fringe, non-relevant, and pseudo-scientific ideas need to be completely erradicated. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Grayfell, and also think that WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH applies. If we're going to have an article about this, it should follow the clear scientific consensus that race and intelligence are completely independent of each other, and that (pretty much without exception) arguments to the opposite are just racism wearing a pseudo-science mask. I'd also point out the last few Keep votes in rapid-fire succession look a bit suspicious and WP:SOCK-y to me. Plus they have completely ignored the above points about it not being a delete for notability, but rather for FRINGE, SYNTH and NPOV. MrAureliusR_Talk! 16:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I concur with this evaluation of that little clump of keep !votes. ("No, Mr. Green, communism was only a red herring.") XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I’ve read all the arguments for keep here and found none of them moving. They don’t seem to overcome the very basic claims made by the opposing side. If it weren’t for the page's incredibly acrimonious history I would say a re-write could be possible but I doubt it would last more than five minutes before being edited outside the lines again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article as it stands is poorly written and still uses white supremacists as sources. Just an unsalvageable mess of bad faith edits and original synthesis to push a POV using poor sourcing, and a magnet for racist trolls.Citing (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AFD is using a disingenuous strategy. Shortly before nominating the article for deletion, the nominator and two of the other "delete" voters tag-teamed to remove about 7 KB of long-established content from the article, including around a quarter of the article's sources. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] Now, the same people are arguing that the article must be deleted because it is too poorly written or poorly sourced, and can't be salvaged. What I'm seeing is a clear strategy of deliberately reducing the quality of an article, and then using its resulting condition as an argument to delete it. Severisth (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those diffs are deletions, not additions. It stands to reason that if content was removed and the article remains a case of WP:SYNTH, the issue lies not with the content that was changed, but with the content that remains the same. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings says it well, but suffice to say that I could have also nominated this article in the state it was prior to my edits. I think the article is marginally better than the state it was prior to my work, but it was largely through working on the article that I came to the conclusion that I did. Even given what I tried to accomplish, it was still hopeless. Please assume good faith here. jps (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is a soaboxy synthesis of often highly questionable sources. It's an old article, so we need to go back and see if this has crept in over time, but a sample of older revisions indicates to me that the problem is almost certainly unfixable: I can't find a prior version that I would consider well-sourced and neutral. I'd be happy to see one if someone has one they can highlight. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per JzG. The topic likely is worth an article, but this article isn't it and it's not salvagable. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by AleatoryPonderings. Celestina007 (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article deals with an important subject, and includes relevant information that is appropriately sourced. Any objections to the content of the article should be dealt with via editing, rather than deletion of the whole article. Mr Butterbur (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not helpful, because it fails to acknowledged the reason the article was nominated. "Importance" is decided by sources, and must be presented in context. The nomination explains that the this information has not been appropriately sourced. Your declaration to the contrary is unpersuasive. For many years, attempts to deal with these serious problems by editing have been non-productive. This is why WP:TNT is being discussed. Grayfell (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. This is, what, the 8th AfD for this article? (Not the 2nd—check the box in the top right of the AfD page.) If it really had no salvageable prior state, one of the previous attempts to nuke it would have been successful, and the topic certainly has not become less notable. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferahgo the Assassin: What is your rationale for keep? That it is notable? That point is not being disputed at all. The AFD is based on sourcing – specifically WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, and WP:FRINGE. Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferahgo the Assassin: As I've pointed out already above, this is the seventh nomination (not the 8th). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if this is just the 7th repeated try to do the same thing, after all kinds of fights etc and deleting all parts of the article....

Is anyone here thinking this is a random "just let's try a 7th time to delete this article?" seriously people Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vague WP:ASPERSIONs such as this are unhelpful. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it helps admins and people more involved in WP administrative matters, which I have sometimes difficulty in understanding, but I wasn't even aware of the existence of such an article before voting to DELETE it above. I still think it should be rewritten from scratch, without any genetic and/or racial implications whatsoever. Again, I completely disavow any attempts to understand history and society based on the latest pseudo-scientific attempts to establish genetic theories as a "science" that can contribute anything serious or reliable to studies in the humanities. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics isn't pseudo-science. It's the science of how the structures of every lifeform on our planet get built, including the human brain. It would be a tragedy for Wikipedia to adopt this sort of ideologically motivated censoriousness and endrose a blank-slate mythos. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straw man. Of course genetics writ large isn't pseudoscience. The relevant question is whether the purported connections described in this article between race, ethnicity, and genetics, on the one hand, and intelligence on the other, are established by generally accepted scientific theory—or whether, instead, they represent WP:FRINGE viewpoints or original research pushing a particular point of view out of line with scientific consensus. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some nascent theories, which have not been sufficiently developed, tested, and agreed upon by a considerable number of scientists, and the possible implications of which for social and historic studies is not developed to any serious level, cannot be called "the science of how the structures of every lifeform on our planet get built." There are still years of research before anything even remotely resembling that could possibly, or not, get developed. But even then, how such a "science" would determine social behavior and history would also be no more than untested and unstudied theories. On the other hand, the humanities have been engaging in the serious study of society and history for the past 300 years or so, and these are the studies that Wikipedia can report on, as long as these reports are extracted from reliable sources. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per AleatoryPonderings. I agree with the nom than an article could be justified in theory, but this article is not it.

Brigade Piron (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable subject. See WP:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs. Loksmythe (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly notable, attempts to delete it are coming from personal dislike for the subject, not lack of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Loksmythe: and 96.44.5.219 why are you commenting on notability when the nominator has clearly stated that notability is not the issue? Please read the nominator's rationale before commenting. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the nomination is distorted. From his intro to this nomination, jps suggests that what is actually notable here is the rejection of the notion of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, that is it a racist canard and what this article should be is something like Racist myths about Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence; hence let's TNT it and rebuild it the right way. What I think, and what I suspect most or all of the keep voters here believe as well, is that crux of what is notable here is the overwhelming evidence that Ashkenazi Jews actually do have an unusually high mean intelligence—it shows up in IQ scores (as well as other standardized tests for analytical reasoning like the SAT) and it shows up in their overrepresentation in circles of elite intellectual achievement like the Nobel Prize—and that this unusually high mean intelligence is driven in part by genetics. jps's argument here is analogous to the one made at the most recent AfD for Race and intelligence, where many of the delete voters suggested that Race and intelligence should be subsumed entirely by History of the race and intelligence controversy. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

jps suggests that what is actually notable here is the rejection of the notion of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence Incorrect. Perhaps try not speaking for others. jps (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My summary is a reasonable interpretation of your "This is why the subject is notable..." following links to opinion pieces about how scandalous the subject is. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not even close to a reasonable summary. And the fact that you think it is while it is not is just further evidence of how fucking problematic you are on these pages. jps (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whoever decides this can just ignore the off-topic "this is a notable subject" Keep votes, so we don't have to point out every time that the poster is missing the point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:43, 19 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 20:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meneka Das

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

Biography of an actress who does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. She has played small roles, mostly uncredited, in a number of films. Her only claim to fame is that she worked in Bohemian Rhapsody (film) that won an academy award. Article has only one source which is not independent of her either. Google search only shows passing mentions but nothing in-depth. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON. But, if someone can expand this article with credible citations then I might change my vote. -Hatchens (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG due to not having more than passing mentions in reliable sources Spiderone 12:24, 18 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. czar 23:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Lollar

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

Non-notable actress that fails WP:GNG with no third-party coverage. Six total credits in minute filmography that are all bit parts. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE failed to reveal any significant coverage to justify inclusion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:47, 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 delete. czar 23:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PNC Center (Akron)

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

The article does not meet GNG, no SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth, or NBUILD "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." // Timothy :: talk 04:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unremarkable building. A7-able, I'd say, if A7 could be used for buildings. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:09, 18 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. czar 23:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gledaj Me Sad

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSINGLE. Sources are mentions, promos, etc. Nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV / WP:IS. I have also nominated Bake (singer) at AfD, which is the reason I have not done a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 04:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because it was released as a single doesn't mean it gets its own article, if the only media coverage it received are its own release announcements. Do not redirect to singer's article because that is being considered for deletion as well. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 00:52, 12 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. czar 23:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bake (singer)

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

Promo article which does not meet WP:GNG per WP:SPIP. Sources are mentions, promo content, etc. Nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV / WP:IS. // Timothy :: talk 04:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources are not mentioned on the Wiki, as far as I can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.90.13 (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was nominated on 2020 Music Awards Ceremony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.90.13 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. It is true that he was nominated for an award in his country, but that is for best YouTube personality and it does not seem to be one of that ceremony's more covered awards. Otherwise he is only found in the typical self-promotional and streaming sites. Wikipedia is not a promotional service and perhaps he will have independent media notice in the future. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 00:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- How are articles promotional when they only cover how good his song was charting? And how do You even recognize an promotional article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.90.13 (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as stated on the official page of the MAC music awards ceremony, "MAC is a formal ceremony honoring the excellence of professionals in the region's music industry, and the all-night music and entertainment event brings together the most popular regional stars. At the MAC, awards are given for the greatest achievements in the field of music in the past year, within all musical directions - from pop music, rock, through folk, to hip-hop and trap." Bake was nominated with his song "Broj". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8N7HeaArZA&ab_channel=MAC%2FMusicAwardsCeremony (03:41:23) MAC Music Awards Ceremony - About us Serbiawiki (talk) 11:27, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EditPad

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. This is extremely ref-bombed (100+ refs), but it the reviews cited are limited to a single forum post, and my search only found a one-paragraph review here and a blank-page review (? - maybe my ad blocker kills it?). The heavily refbombed section on use and such is composed of mentions in passing/primary sources. No indication of any awards. Article created by new account from August, not a run-by-night WP:SPA but clearly not someone new around here, and I'd like to ask the creator if they stop by here, whether they have any WP:COI to disclose. This was tagged by User:Charmk for a likely advert lacking notability, and I agree. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found only few mentions in InfoWorld and PC Mag magazines, which may be enough for a redirect (however, I don´t see a clear redirect target here), but certainly not for a stand-alone article. Pavlor (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG Charmk (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline. It has been recognized as having technical significance by reliable sources, thus is presumed to be notable if it meets this criteria. Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Inclusion There are more cites of EditPad, due to its unique ability to edit huge files with huge line lengths, than any other text editor currently deemed "notable". Wikipedia:MILL EditPad has been used for graduate thesis software development, journalism, penetration testing, computer chess, extending and describing game software, scholarly Literature Text Encoding with XML markup metadata, Mathematics publication, linguistics, medieval Arabic text analysis, and data formatting, and is US government approved. Biologists use it for managing genetic sequences. Mathematicians, literature scholars, physicists, and computer scientists use it for their work. They all cite the software in their publications. There are hundreds of cites at Gscholar. The programmer is a Belgian, living in Thailand, I have no relationship to anything related to the product, but the product is unique and needs a Wikipedia page. In 2007 a self-confessed sock-puppet forum-shopped the deletion of many text editors besides EditPad with a 50% deletion rate. "refbomb"? Actually just trying to not be poorly sourced, like most of the other text editors currently deemed notable. User:Tedickey=Thomas Dickey author of Vile (text editor) objected to my adding an external link to a Carnegie Mellon University course on vi. Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are nine positive reviews listed for EditPad. It has been improved over the last 24 years.Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NoteTab has no positive reviews at all, and no references at all. EditPlus has no positive reviews at all, and no references at all. Notepad2 has no positive reviews at all, and no second-party references at all. Metapad has no positive reviews at all, and no second-party references at all. GWD Text Editor has no positive reviews at all, and no second-party references at all. Crimson Editor has no non-download descriptions at all.Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Article created by new account from August" actually I am User:Xb2u7Zjzc32→→→→→→→Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, "vote" keep only once (use "comment" etc. for other input). Could you list two or three (ONLY three) reviews you think are best (in sense broad coverage of the article subject)? That would certainly help to judge notability here. Pavlor (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ping User:Sandstein for an admin to cross out improper multiple votes from a single account. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, thanks, but I hope the closer will be able to take this into account now that you've mentioned it. Sandstein 10:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was just adding more info and re-iterating my opinion, it seemed I was following tradition, there was no attempt to imply a "vote" twice. I can indent them if it confuses. It sure seems like this piece of software has a higher bar than Metapad, Notepad2, NoteTab, GWD Text Editor, EditPlus, they don't have anything like what you ask for this program. User:Vacuum Cleaner 01 (sockpuppet) opposes Crimson Editor, EditPlus, Metapad, EditPlus, SlickEdit. The fundamental difference to all these other Microsoft Notepad-like programs is that it will edit HUGE files with HUGE "lines" (edit unusually large files) and academics use it because it does that for free, this separates EditPad from these simpler text editors. Most reviews are in academic papers describing its essential quality for research published. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists does not apply because its unique abilities that Metapad, Notepad2, NoteTab, GWD Text Editor, EditPlus do not have. I object to these baseless ad hominem attacks, and no real reading of the article by these commenters seems evident. No refuting of any of the facts I have stated have occurred. This is a well-researched article, a huge iceberg, no couple of mass-market glib magazine reviews can compare to a huge number of published academic researchers. Read the references. "the reviews cited are limited to a single forum post" is not true. The claim of WP:GNG is not true. The claim of nothing at Gscholar is not true. Read the references. It passes WP:N WP:V WP:RS WP:NOT. This is software with significant historical and technical importance. TYPSET and RUNOFF, QED (text editor), Univac Text Editor, ed (text editor) did not have blurbs in Datamation but they are referenced in textbooks and research. Oko5ekmi5 (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Zing^(Talk!) 04:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Striking vote by a banned sockpuppet[reply]
- WP:KEEPPER is not a helpful vote, particularly where the only keep above is from the article creator who clerly has some problems with Wikipedia policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is written in too severe of an advertising tone. The citation overkill (two sentences in the "Edit Pad Lite" section has 21 references) is beyond comprehension and with the bloated external links section (see: Wikipedia:Spam event horizon) amounts to spam; There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia: advertisements masquerading as articles and contributions to articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. Look at the Regular Expressions Cookbook and Just Great Software sections. The subject is supposed to be "EditPad" not "Jan Goyvaerts" and I think it is beyond fixing. Otr500 (talk) 16:27, 19 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acuity Knowledge Partners

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

The entity was an offshoot division of Moody's Analytics which was not notable enough in the first place itself i.e., fails WP:NCORP. Later, it got acquired by another organization. The entity has a series of names changes due to a series of acquisitions. Besides lacking notability of its own, it also lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found references that are establishing the notability of the company. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. CleanAmbassy (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The 1st is from the "sites" section of Forbes, fails as pre WP:FORBES. The 2nd is entirely based on an interview with no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND. The 3rd is entirely based on this company announcement, also fails WP:ORGIND. The 4th relies on quotations and information provided by company personnel with no Independent Content, also fails WP:ORGIND. Finally the 5th is entirely based on this Press Release from Moody's and also fails WP:ORGIND. Not a single one of those references meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and User:HighKing. This is just another company with no encyclopedia value. With 2019 advertising revenues between the US and England in the $260 BILLION dollar a year neighborhood there is potentially a good reason to create and fight for the inclusion of such articles. I am not stating I think this is the case here but possible. Wikipedia is neither an advertising nor a directory of companies and businesses platform. The English Wikipedia has become a world encyclopedia so a subject needs to be notable on the world-at-large scheme and not just from a select financial or business news aspect. Esomar states it is The market place for business and uses advertising language like a press release such as "Our strength lies in our approach..." (2nd paragraph) which is clearly company promotional. The Economic Times is a press release of one company acquiring another for an undisclosed sum. I could go on but the results will be similar. Otr500 (talk) 17:38, 19 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. czar 17:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GameMill Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

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

As with last time, the company is not notable. The games table is sourced entierly to Metacritic (which takes its information from GameFAQs), while there is no source on the company itself. WP:GNG and WP:NCORP remain not-met. IceWelder [✉] 08:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 08:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 08:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A developer with such a long list of games (that are WP:V-confirmed) but otherwise no clear notability, I would be inclined to keep only due to tracking the creative output of such a company. This is not true for just a publisher, who do not contribute creatively to a game in the same way. --Masem (t) 17:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Non-notable developer that is only known for a couple of games. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 22:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as most don't even discuss the company and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:27, 14 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 20:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Ounjian

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A WP:BEFORE search yields little coverage other than some YouTube videos; nothing to suggest that this amateur skateboarder is a notable sportsperson Spiderone 17:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No participation in international competitions. No good rankings in any competition at all. Very little coverage on the subject. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:BASIC. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 12:37, 17 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. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Humphrey (MLM)

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

Unclear notability under WP:BIO. All searches confounded by the more well known politician, Hubert Humphrey. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I spent some time looking for sources and don't believe this there is sufficient coverage to say this person is notable. GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adding "founder" to the query and using the - search modifier yields no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If the title were neutral, we could consider a redirect, but that's not the case here. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the words of Tom Lehrer, "Whatever became of Hubert?" And the answer, as far as I can tell, is that nobody knows or cares - at least not in the case of the Hubert of pyramid schemes. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 12:44, 17 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] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chittagong

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Azadi

[3] ttps://dainikazadi.net/সিপ্লাস-টিভিকে-চবির-সম্ম/

[4] ttp://dainikpurbokone.net/chattogram/111257/সিপ্লাস-টিভিকে-চবির-সম্/

[5] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhorer_Kagoj

[6] ttps://www.bhorerkagoj.com/2018/08/16/জনপ্রিয়-হয়ে-উঠেছে-চাটগাঁ/

[7] ttp://thedailyshangu.com/archives/15267

[8] ttp://english.reportertodaynews.com/youtubes-silver-play-button-got-the-only-online-tv-channel-in-chatgahiya-language-cplustv/

[9] Rasul, Nadia (17 April 2012). "Trucks as Art: Pakistan's Colorful Tradition, With a Midwestern Twist". The Atlantic. Retrieved 11 October 2020.

[10] KolkataSeptember 27, Indrajit Kundu. "Art for peace: Pakistani painters lend colour to Durga Puja this year!". India Today. Retrieved 11 October 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[1]