Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After extended time for discussion, there is no support for any scenario in which this content is kept. If someone wants to redirect the title somewhere after the article has been deleted, that would be a matter for another noticeboard. BD2412 T 00:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henrique_Olifiers

Henrique_Olifiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This subject of this article does not meet any of the notability criteria for a "Creative professional" (as listed at WP:AUTHOR). None of the projects listed can be said to be significant, and the article reads as simply a list of positions held like a CV. To bring this article up to Wikipedia standards would require a substantial rewrite along with addition citations of notability that simply do not exist. MrMajors (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a notable creator of significant works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Bossa Studios if indeed there's anything worth merging. No indication of reaching WP:BIO beyond his relationship to Bossa. --Lockley (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. I do not support a redirect, per WP:XY; Bossa Studios is not the only possible prominent redirect target. Ravenswing 13:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Apart from the fact that nobody except the creator of the article supports keeping, none of the reasons given for keeping are in line with Wikipedia policy. We have, for example the fact that the subject was referred to by an allegedly notable person (irrelevant whether true or not), the fact that there is an article on the subject in German Wikipedia. We are also told other things, such as that the article does not satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria, but that is presumably precisely why it is at a deletion discussion, rather than having been speedily deleted. Similar considerations apply to other comments form the creator of the article. JBW (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elbst

Elbst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE.   // Timothy :: talk  13:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have completely rewritten the article, and based it on existing sources. I have performed an extensive search for all the sources mentioned in contemporary sources and included what I have found on the talk page. The contemporary sources are mostly based on what Renward Cysat (1545–1614) and later his son Johann (1587–1657), wrote about the regional folklore in the region around Lucerne in the canton of Uri. The modern sources are all compilations and contain no new research at all. The older, 19th century sources are also referencing Cysat again. The exception appears to be de:Josef Müller (Pfarrer) who did speak to some of the locals and includes some of their testimony in his book, Sagen aus Uri: aus dem volksmunde gesammelt. That text is at [1] I wouldn't mind at all if this article got deleted, I mostly rewrote it to show that the first version of this article is NOT based on the sources cited, as claimed but its creator, but on another source, that I have identified as Eberhardt (2002), which is the source of the very mistaken claim that "The word Elbst is said to have it's origin from the German word "albiz" meaning "swan". That is utter nonsense. Vexations (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  An explanation for the claim about the source used for the etymology of "Elbst" is provided here. It's supposed to have been Wood, Francis A. (1908). "Greek and Latin Etymologies". Classical Philology. 3 (1): 74–86. ISSN 0009-837X. That source was never in the article, and doesn't mention Elbst. Vexations (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Author request, I am relying the request of the author ([2]) that this be draftified.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

i)Notability

The Original referrer of the Elbst, Renward Cysat is a notable person, his book is notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book while having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N. (also in same way, Müller and C. Kohlrusch are notable along with their works

ii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE

The article is neither any of the 'Summary-only descriptions of works', 'Lyrics databases', 'Excessive listings of unexplained statistics' or 'Exhaustive logs of software updates' thus not violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

iii) WP:BEFORE

Also, in spite of WP:BEFORE C. being very much pertinent, the AfD nomination was made.

iv) Alternative of Deletion

The artcile does not violate any 14 points mentioned in WP:DEL-REASON or any of G1-G14 or A1-A11 per WP:CSD. Further per WP:NOTBUILT, since the article has been in the process of improvement, also per WP:DEL#CONTENT, it should be kept.

v) Good Faith and New Comer

Besides I request to consider WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.

vi) Page in Deutschte Wikipedia

There is a page in Deutche Wikipedia about Elbst since 2007, hence this proves the justification for its inclusion.

Comment: I have already requested the article to be moved to draftspace since in the mean time I could not execute the planned enrichment of the article due to the reigning exigent situation, otherwsise there would have been no requirement for this debate. AranyaPathak (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if someone finds a good home I'd vote to merge it there. Troll Control (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Vexations. If they reviewed the non-English sources, wrote an entirely new article, and still think it should be deleted, I defer to them. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The page Elbst has recently undergone massive changes and is also under the process of continuous improvement. A reconsideration regarding deletion decision under present situation is highly appreciated. --AranyaPathak (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I still think it should be deleted. Adding sources like these doesn't help:

  1. http://www.kartengeschichte.ch/ch/summaries/e02c.html doesn't mention Elbst or Seelisberg
  2. https://staatsarchiv.lu.ch/schaufenster/karten_stadtansichten/kantonskarte_cysat is a gorgeous map, but doesn't even show where Seelisberg is, (it would be to the left of Beckenried, the map is oriented south up) Vexations (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robin (character). Tone 12:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redbird (comics)

Redbird (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Yet another example that PRODs are vulnerable to abuse. Let's discuss then - can anyone find anything to salvage this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yet again, there's nothing in the nomination to distinguish it from the rest of this cookie-cutter bundle. This is a vehicle used by Robin, the boy wonder who has been around for 80 years and so has an extensive history of his own. A quick browse soon turns up details such as its construction in Batman & Robin: The Making of the Movie. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE and so there is no case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to cite from the source? All I see it are few sentences discussing this gadget in passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew, applicable policies also include WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL (sources regurgitating the same plot summaries seems pretty run of the mill for fictional topics to me). I haven't done a full search yet, but I'm not seeing much to indicate the other policies are met. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SIGCOV is part of WP:GNG and just a guideline. WP:MILL is just an essay and so is worthless. A policy such as WP:ATD is stronger and more relevant, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Improvement is clearly possible as, unlike the nominator, I took the time to find a relevant source. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:GNG is also a policy, you know. And no, I don't see any sources that allow expansion outside a plot summary. PS. Perhaps someone would care to copy stuff to https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Redbird_(vehicle) ? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You quote essays and guidelines all the time, so you'll perhaps excuse us taking this with a large grain of salt. How about WP:AGF? Ravenswing 15:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:GNG is a guideline and so explicitly admits of exceptions. Insofar as the policy/guideline/essay stuff means anything, it's that policies trump guidelines and I cited a stack of policies. Deletionists only consider GNG because they think it justifies wholesale deletion. It doesn't because the policy WP:ATD usually applies and so improvement/merger is preferable. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrew Davidson: This absolutely is not another one of those "cookie-cutter nominations". The reason why the nominations were disruptive beforehand is specifically because certain parties were indiscriminately digging up as many c-class character articles as possible, flooding WP:AFD with a multitude of nominations within a short period of time, copy/pasting invalid rationales like "fails to establish notability" on every one, and (in some case) were actively lying to get articles deleted. That is not what is happening here. Piotrus is following deletion protocol perfectly fine, and is even checking for sources beforehand. If a WP:BEFORE test fails, the onus is on YOU to prove that coverage exists. Darkknight2149 21:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Light Merge/Redirect to Robin (character). The coverage of either version of this vehicle in reliable sources is minimal. Even the coverage in the book that Andrew brings up is, as far as I can see in the preview, limited to two pictures/captions, and one sentence in which it is tangentially mentioned. Tim Drake is the Robin who the vehicle is most closely associated with, but since it also appeared as a motorcycle in Batman and Robin driven by Dick Grayson, the overall main article on Robin would be the more appropriate place to mention it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. There's really nothing to merge, multiple possible redirect targets, and I question the title's value as a search term: the "Redbird" disambiguation page, with several dozen entries, shows that. (As to that, the subject's mention on that page is likely all the info that's needed.) Ravenswing 15:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Piotrus. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Robin, per Rorshacma. The article does not meet GNG, but merging is a better option than deleting. Rhino131 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect - Insufficient real world content to justify an article. Being mentioned in a reliable source is not the same as significant coverage in a reliable source. TTN (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AMR Research

AMR Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This company doesn't seem to be notable. There's only two references in the article. One of them is an interview and the other is a dead link. So neither work for notability. I wasn't able to find multiple in-depth reliable sources on them when I did a WP:BEFORE either. There are a few things cited in the "press coverage" section of the article that are trivially related to them, for an article about the CEO's opinion on Swine Flu, but none of them work for notability IMO. So there doesn't seem to be anything about the company that would help it pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. As a possible alternative to deletion it could be merged into the article of it's parent company Gartner. Adamant1 (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Purely a promotional article (WP:PROMO). -Hatchens (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Everything in the article seems run of the mill. Producing reports that occasionally get cited in the trade press doesn’t make a firm notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge/ redirect to Gartner, currently it's PR --Devokewater@ 14:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not enough reliable sources to support notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Air

Albany Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is about a local American airline that went out of business the same year it started. The only two sources in the article seem to be blogs and I failed to find any in-depth reliable secondary sources about it in a WP:BEFORE. Which could be due to the ambiguity of "Albany Air", but I also don't think I found anything because it's probably just not notable. Maybe there will be a few trivial local news articles about it, but it's doubtful there will be enough (or anything) for it to pass WP:NCORP. Adamant1 (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I tried finding sources for this airline, and I'm happy because there is one here, but guess what, it's an air conditioner. I tried looking up to page 17 from Bing, and there's none. It's clearly not notable. GeraldWL 15:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references given don't even support the facts given in the article. I found this link [3] but it doesn't help much either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retswerb (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Ravenswing 11:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete...now if it was the air conditioning fixing company, I might have voted keep..they are more deserving of an article than the airline...Antonio Almost Happy Birthday to Me Martin (yes?) 18:41, August 12, 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: ditto the airconditioning company comment, and agree with nominator's comments about notability. Whiteguru (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Na Zare

Na Zare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails wp:sigcov and WP:SINGLE . Dtt1^Talk 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has been modified since nomination so that it's not just a machine translation of the Russian version and more sources have been added. I think the song has been written about enough in Russian-language sources for wp:sigcov to apply, and it has also been covered by a few notable artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballerlikemahler (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove and redirect to Alyans (band) on the basis that the article fails WP:SINGLE. The sources might be there but there is not enough detail to warrant a separate article in its current state. lovkal (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has plenty of sources and details about this song. --ShadZ01 (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article has beedn modified so it is good now Alex-h (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has been improved, now meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Article has been improved and squeeks past WP:GNG / WP:NSONG.   // Timothy :: talk  04:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Mansfield Town F.C. season

2008–09 Mansfield Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Spiderone 17:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Almost all previous AfDs on National League seasons have ended in delete. See recent examples like this or this (and all the other previous AfDs referenced in that one). Number 57 09:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonis Ahmar

Moonis Ahmar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Last discussion from 2017 was closed as no consensus, I believe it is time that this article be revisited. Somehow it also managed to go over two years with its lead being Template:Resume. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only sources I can find is to the tune of "Dr. Moonis Ahmar [title/position] [said/argued] [this]: [4][5](Opinion pieces) [6][7][8][9] It was hard to find articles because he writes many of them, I had to search moonis ahmar -site:https://tribune.com.pk/ to find any.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 23:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. Some cites on GS but not enough yet for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete This unreferenced article has been on Wikipedia for over 14 years. At first thought I was wondering if we should give more time to find sources, but when I realized it had been on Wikipedia for well over a decade I realized that its very existence is in such huge defiance of principles like verifiability that we should scrap it now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources on GS but in my view they are not yet enough WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom, PR. Google shows some interesting results but nothing to suggest notability --Devokewater@ 18:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I found some citations on Google Scholar but not enough to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, and three book reviews on JSTOR [10] [11] [12] for three separate books (only one review per book), not quite enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR (I'd prefer to see at least two books with at least two reviews each). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 12:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Gamble

Seth Gamble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Soreces are very bad and unreliable: 1)afd, unreliable. 2) interview, doesn't count toward notability as not independent, 3) passing mention, 4) passing mention, 5) interview, 6) porn award which do not count toward notability since pornbio was deprecated, 7) passing mention, 8) interview, 9) passing mention, 10) interview, 11) passing mention, 12) twitter, 13 to 27) porn award nominations. independent research didn't yield any in depth cover of the subject. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject

Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable pronographic performer. The nominator shows the sourcing does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep an in-depth feature in Men’s Health, quoted by Newsweek and Queerty... I’m leaning on keep, it’s certainly not a clear cut case. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with OP. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikayl Arreola

Mikayl Arreola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable boxer that fails WP:NBOX. I can't find anything beyond passing mentions and routine fight results, appears to fail GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 22:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to meeting the notability guidelines for boxers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn't find anything that meets WP:GNG, WP:NPEOPLE, or WP:NBOX.   // Timothy :: talk  05:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mila Dolman

Mila Dolman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. scope_creep^Talk 22:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did not see any independent coverage whatsoever in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - After searching Google, the only thing I found was social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn); there is no evidence of meeting BASIC, GNG or ARTIST criteria for notability. It is curious that there is much unsourced detail on this person'a life that is not reflected in the sources. The creator is a single purpose account that only edits this article, and a draft on this person's teacher at art school. Netherzone (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable Devokewater@ 11:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found an article. https://www.mk.ru/culture/2020/06/04/russkaya-koroleva-londona-mila-dolman-ya-obitayu-v-gryaznoy-zone-.html

https://mira1.ru/en/feed/1129 are you searching her name as Мила Долман as well ? Patapsco913 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no evidence that she is a real artist, nor any evidence that any of her work is selling nor any evidence that her work is being held in museums. In fact there is barely mention of her at all. She is very very obscure and non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If you could show Mila Dolman's work was in a museum, as a culturally important artefact, then that would clinch it. scope_creep^Talk 07:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the criteria is that it needs to be held in the collections of "several" museums, which has been interpreted as two permanent collections in real museums. Being in a permanent collection is different than just being in a show. One article and one show at a museum does not make the cut. The criteria for a notable artist is here: WP:ARTIST and she does not meet it at this time. SIGCOV means sustained deep coverage over time, not one article. Netherzone (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind. scope_creep^Talk 16:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could find anything that meets WP:GNG, WP:NPEOPLE or WP:ARTIST.   // Timothy :: talk  05:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio 10:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arkamo Rangers

Arkamo Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Ephemeral NN band, fails the GNG and all elements of WP:BAND. No significant coverage in reliable sources found beyond namedrops and casual mentions (among them, ZERO G-News hits). Search turns up the usual suspects: YouTube, social media, Spotify, discogs, and the like. Notability tagged for over ten years. Deprodded by the article creator with a lengthy WP:ILIKEIT argument, but no new sources added, now or previously. Ravenswing 22:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable. Same old unreliable sites like Amazon, Discogs, Rate Your Music, Spotify, facebook, Google Play, iTunes, Pinterest, Jambase, empty Allmusic page, WP mirrors, concert sites, plus name checks and stuff where the words are separated. (Not going to start a rant about notability and all that stuff.). Btw, the name of the band is more like a sports team. :) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article's creator has exhibited a persecution complex about not just deletion nominations, but any sort of editing, to his articles about local musicians that he enjoys. He has written passionately about the Arkamo Rangers here, but that does not mean they are notable. In this article we learn that "The original band members have diverse and distinct personalities." Wow, that only describes every band ever. The article is dependent on dead links that would have been tangential connections anyway, the band's AllMusic entries are blank, and they have received no reliable media coverage. They played some gigs and picked up some local fans, good for them. They can be discussed in their fans' blogs, not in an encyclopedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The band got little official recognition, but had considerable influence in evolving the native Ozark folk music into it's current, highly-modern, form. Beyond this, the lyrics are significant in that they describe rural youth culture in ways that are likewise ignored by the mainstream profit-oriented media. Deleting this page furthers rural isolation that is causing its better values to decline in ways that are allowing an introjected non-traditional culture to thrive on the traditional decline. The outcome of this is intolerance is conflict between rural and urban that is being leveraged by pathological haters (evidence on tiktok is abundant). I guess you could call this 'a discovery,' but with a long career managing and roady-ing bands through the 80s and 90s with dozens of bands (some with wikipedia pages), I can honestly say that none represented culture or provided influence as this one has. Beyond this is the band's musical and lyrical quality which it's detractors cannot comprehend, because if the could, they would not be attempting to delete it. (Did they even listen? Probably not.) John Bessa (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Subjects do not qualify for Wikipedia articles because of their alleged influence, their description of local youth culture, their lyrical quality, or whether other editors know about them, nor if there's a passionate fan out there who wants to include them. They qualify if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources, or if they meet long-defined standards of inclusion. In my user space for over a decade now is a draft article for a man who led a musical group I was in on and off for over forty years, someone with a number of musical accomplishments and whom I revere, and my objective view of whether he can meet the GNG and WP:MUSICBIO is that it's shaky. You have been on Wikipedia long enough to either know the standards which apply to articles, or to learn them if you haven't.

  (By the bye, I just listened to a couple tracks on YouTube, the most popular of which has had 1 view a week since it was uploaded. Perfectly inoffensive bluegrass. The article still doesn't qualify for Wikipedia.) Ravenswing 21:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The above "Keep" vote by John Bessa is clearly illogical. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic resource in which people/things must qualify for inclusion, and that is the reason for the policies named by Ravenswing and myself. This band is not notable because they have haters in social media or because some people don't appreciate their culture. The vote then descends into desperate accusations against anyone who refuses to accept the band's greatness, as apparently we don't "comprehend" them because we don't listen to them, and that's why we want to delete the article. Well I don't listen to Kanye West and honestly don't "comprehend" why he attracts universally rave reviews (he's good, but come on) but I have never tried to delete his Wikipedia article. Bessa's vote is little more than an "I like it" fallacy, with an attempt to throw in some original research on why they're brilliant but tragically unknown. Passionate fans can write in blogs, notable bands are covered here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep. I loathe rap, for instance, but there is no question that hundreds of rap artists and rap-related subjects pass notability muster with flying colors, and that any attempt to seek their deletion would be not only spiteful and stupid, but wholly against Wikipedia policy. Ravenswing 03:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @John Bessa: "The band got little official recognition..." See, that's the problem here. On Wikipedia we don't measure notability on the ground of "I like this band." That's not a good reason. The band needs to have reliable, secondary sources and the article can be kept. For example I cannot stand the genres of teen-pop or country, but I don't start an AfD on the articles of let's say, Hannah Montana or Willie Nelson just because I hate them. They have been covered in reliable media so that makes them notable, same with a lot of other artists. On the other hand I couldn't find anything reliable on this band, just social media pages, streaming service links, concert promotion sites and retail sites. These are not enough for WP inclusion. So to summarize: just because you like this band does not warrant it a Wikipedia article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Josip Broz Tito. This is a tricky one. The article is definitely not ok as it stands. A separate article on the topic that is not a POV fork? Possible, but needs work. Even better, incorporation of a section about the personality cult into the main article. Closing as a redirect so that content remains available if any of the above actions are taken later. Tone 12:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of Tito

Myth of Tito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:SOAPBOX commentary essay. Now the views presented in the article may have representation outside Wikipedia, including by scholars, but stating that the notion Tito liberated Yugoslavia in WWII or that Tito was a Yugoslav nation-builder as 'myth' is inherently POV. Different viewpoints on the role of Tito can be expressed in the main article without creating POVFORKs. Soman (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would propose that the article is renamed to "Cult of personality of Tito" and we can take it from there, considering that there is no doubt that the guy had a cult following (and still does). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice discussion of this concept belongs in the Josip Broz Tito article. This should not be discussed separately, but as part of the overall evaluation and legacy of Tito. This is an extremely poorly written POV fork with unencyclopaedic tone. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 -- since you are more experienced than I in this part of the WikiBalkans, I am curious on your view on this. I think WP:TNT may apply here, but is there some reason in particular that you think this cannot be a stand-alone constructed along the lines of Stalin's_cult_of_personality? --Calthinus (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Calthinus. The central problem with the article is the creator, Antidiskriminator. As Maleschreiber rightly points out, there is extensive and long-term evidence that they have a long list of POV creations (only a few of the recent ones are mentioned by Maleschreiber, I could add a dozen more in the last year), and they definitely will not fix the article in the way that you suggest. They do not edit neutrally, have very fixed views and will be intransigent, and are more likely to double down and make it worse. If this article is not blown up, it will linger on as a POV fork from the Tito article. The useable bits could be merged into the Tito article, but I feel it would be a grave error to allow it to stand alone in this form, and would reward the constant POV-pushing behaviour. The egregious POV behaviour of Antidiskriminator needs to be addressed with ArbCom, who imposed a lengthy "Serbs in the 20th century" TBAN on them some time ago, which obviously should be reinstated. I will get to it, but frankly, there is a lot of POV-pushing and disruption in the Balkans area at present, and it is hard to keep on top of it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything that Peacemaker67 has put forward. The editing pattern of that editor indicates that they are not even interested if the articles they write are tagged for multiple policy violations. The main goal seems to be to use wikipedia as a repository for certain ideas and to keep them around as "alternative facts". But the problem with keeping, let's say, Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period is that even if kept in a heavily tagged mode it still puts forward a conspiracy theory as an alternative. Honestly, I think that only AE can solve the Yugoslav topic area problems which IMO don't necessarily begin with the fact that editors have a POV, but the fact that they're trying to game the way policies function in order to push that POV. If everyone argued for their - minor or major - (N)POV within the boundaries of wikipedia's policies and used reliable bibliography consistently, then all POVs would be eliminated eventually and a narrative which would reflect reality would emerge. But since that doesn't happen, the community should enforce core policies in the strictest manner. --Maleschreiber (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67:, i agree with your sentiments, when you get the time do address those concerns at Arbcom. There are few admins (1 other apart from yourself dealing with the southern end of the region) with topical knowledge on the Balkans, many don't want to delve further to address the POV pushing and or call it even when its not. That's the state of things in this topic area (sigh). Best.Resnjari (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very poorly written WP:POVFORK based on extremely POV conceptualization and WP:FRINGE bibliography. A similar POVFORK was deleted a few months ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs and articles Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period fall in the same category.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have added valid references to this page. The topic of this article has received significant coverage (link to section about works dedicated exclusively to Myth of Tito) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per Wikipedia:Notability. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A week after the article was nominated for deletion I think it can be concluded there is a consensus that the topic is notable, and it should have coverage on Wikipedia within an article of its own. The main concern of editors who !voted for deletion or renaming is pov of part of the article's text or its title, which is not valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia policies (ie Wikipedia:Deletion policy) points to an alternative to deletion which includes tagging to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. One editor who !voted for deletion insisted on tagging the article (diff and diff) to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article). It is impossible to attract editors to the article which is deleted. I invite editors who are concerned about article's pov to respond to tag added by their fellow editor and join editing of the article. No article/editor - no problem is not how Wikipedia works. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is actually a poster child for what WP:TNT is for. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article is currently in poor condition, but the topic is fairly well represented and well documented. Cult of personality, Relay of Youth, Titoism, Law on protecting values, etc.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What I see is a political pamphlet. Who determine what is true and what is a myth? It would be like saying that Tito was not wounded in the Battle of the Sutjeska and that this event is a myth invented by the communists. This article is a one-sided political pamphlet in which there is no other side and thus the article cannot be neutral. Maybe some information with a stronger source may be part of an article about Tito(legacy section). Mikola22 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A bit unsure here. Unlike some others, I think this is a notable topic, clearly -- WEBDuB is right on this. However, the current page is such a POV eyesore (see below) that it is just on the edge of WP:TNT. If the page is to be rescued, I would like to see substantial work in (a) reducing the egregious POV-in-wikivoice on the page, (b) improving the prose which will require a fair amount of work, and (c) dealing with other aspects of the myth of Tito in historiography and elsewhere, such as the spread of the myth to the West as Tito (much like Ceaucescu later with Reagan) managed to portray himself as somehow friendly to capitalistic states, and how this led to the coalescence of the myth of Tito as a man who successfully brought quarrelling peoples together in some paradise state (side note: and that was, at the time was, though now amusingly, used as a model for the proposed One state solution for Israel/Palestine -- not in scope, but this is an aspect of the notability of the myth I would argue -- though perhaps that is the whole Bratsvo Jedinstvo myth more than Tito himself). And, of course, the legacy of that myth, as the state he built fell apart after his death. For examples of the sort of prose that is totally unacceptable on Wikipedia for how POV it is, here is one (which I agree with, but geez, this is just so unprofessional): In this atmosphere of faultlessness many catastrophic political moves were drawn which slowly but inevitably pushed the all country and its Communist leaders into total catastrophe and disintegration.[3] The mythologized Tito and dreamland Yugoslavia never existed.[8] Also, this Danko Popović emphasized that for half of the century movies and books published in Yugoslavia were used to nurture myth of Tito and distort image of Chetniks.[7] -- Popovic is a "writer and playwright" so he is not even remotely WP:DUE, and in light of that, regardless of intention, this sentence will look to almost any informed Western reader like it was inserted just to rehabilitate the Chetniks. Last example: The Myth of Tito was almost unanimously accepted and parroted by western scholars -- no citation, and, well... ahem. --Calthinus (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Josip Broz Tito cult of personality and rewrite per comments by Calthinus or delete. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per concerns raised by the above discussion Alltan (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to "Tito cult of personality". A rewrite would also be a good idea, but there is definitely enough material for a stand-alone article on the subject. I'm surprised such an article didn't exist until recently. Khirurg (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename and improve the article from what I can see, the article is not of a good encyclopedic standard. However, it should be renamed and improved, as this topic has enough content to constitute a separate Wikipedia article. Dikaiosyni (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• TNT delete article is a POV mess. I am undecided as to whether a separate article is appropriate, but if so it's not this. (t · c) buidhe 08:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename: The topic is quite interesting in historical terms and can be further improved.Alexikoua (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge Article needs improving but it is a worthy and notable topic to have a Wikipedia article about. Alternatively it can be merged and turned into a section on the Tito wikipedia page. --James Richards (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The topic is notable, and it should have coverage on Wikipedia. Why not an article of its own. But not this one. It is written very badly. Since it needs to be entirely rewritten, it first needs to be deleted. @Peacemaker67: I see your concerns about the creator of this article, and their continual creation of articles with numerous issues, but unless you take it to AE, your concerns will keep growing. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to "Tito cult of personality". Jingiby (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Tito's cult of personality I have witnessed firsthand among elderly and middle aged people (from former Yugoslavia) in Australia, and probably scholarship covers this in regards to Yugo-nostalgia. But i saw the concerns of admin @Peacemaker and i agree with them. Not only that, Balkan topics have enough POV to deal with, and not that many competent editors are around to address them. This will just be another article in need of work that will languish for years without any real attention.Resnjari (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment At Talk:Myth of Tito#POV and tone I have detailed, with examples, the serious deficiencies in just one of the sources used in the article, which is just a ridiculous fringe and POV polemic that makes all sorts of groundless claims about well-known facts regarding Tito. This source is used for more than a quarter of the citations in the article, including some of the most extreme statements. This is an example of why TNT is required here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not just one of the sources. Its only one of 15 sources (almost all written by contemporary university professors) that Peacemaker67 pointed as fringe. I replied at the same page and explained that claims about groundless claims about well-known facts regarding Tito are incorrect and not even used in the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is the source for eight of the 29 citations used in the article, over 25%. I haven't even examined the rest yet. I have responded to your claims on the talk page. This is really a WP:CIR problem. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is contradictory. You haven't even examined the rest of the sources but you proclaimed that article has WP:FRINGE bibliography diff. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, your position is that when over 25% of an article's citations are to a ridiculous polemic with over a dozen clear factual errors, that doesn't qualify as a fringe bibliography? I'll get to the rest, but I note that Maleschreiber was the first to raise the fringe aspect of the bibliography. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. There are no over a dozen clear factual errors. I proved at article talkpage that your claims about discrepancy of birth date and membership of CPY date are incorrect. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You proved nothing. You made unsubstantiated claims. I provided reliable sources that showed that these claims are spurious. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. I directly refuted central point of your position by explaining at article's talkpage that you were incorrect, provided sources to prove it and explained that you actually refuted your position yourself with Ridley. You are right with one thing: This is really a WP:CIR problem.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I invite interested editors to examine the talk page and judge for themselves regarding Antidiskriminator's claims about what he has proved or otherwise. Not only is competence required, but English comprehension is also required. I do not propose to continue this tit-for-tat nonsense here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Peacemaker67. Ljubiša Despotović's article is a WP:FRINGE article. Another FRINGE element which is utilized for heavy POV purposes is Danko Popović emphasized that for half of the century movies and books published in Yugoslavia were used to nurture myth of Tito and distort image of Chetniks. Setting aside, the obvious historical revisionism about the Nazi collaborationist Chetniks, the article puts forward as a legitimate source, Danko Popović, a figure of Serbian literature - thus, not even remotely a reliable source for historical subjects - who talks about Tito's victorious Partisans as wild highlanders who claimed the girls from Serbia's heartland region, Sumadija, as war booty in a manner similar to the way their hajduk (brigand) ancestors abducted the womenfolk of "agas and beys" during the Ottoman times. Counterposed to communist highlanders stand both the Sumadija girls (by implication, peasants) and the cultivated bourgeois girls from Belgrade and larger cities. This sort of bibliography is being put forward in the article in addition to many misleading citations. Tito as a whole can be discussed in Titoism and Yugo-nostalgia among many legitimate articles. This one is just a WP:POVFORK that needs to be deleted. In general, it needs to be addressed in AE. The longer such editing is allowed to continue without admin intervention, the more it creates an enviroment which makes other editors in the Balkan topic area think that they can act in the same way outside of the context set by wikipedia's core principles.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio 10:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Rice (director)

John Rice (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This person has worked on notable films, but I am unable to find any sources about him. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is very high time that Wikipedia stopped being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

High Roller Casino

High Roller Casino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

• 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, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2011-01 CSI (pinball) no consensus

• Delete. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Unlikely potential use as a search term. czar 04:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 20-Mule-Team Delete: Gah. Even ten years ago the standards weren't that bad. How in the heck did this NN, GNG-failing article last this long? (Yeah, yeah, I know.) Ravenswing 11:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ravenswing: Hehe. Check the Category:Pinball stubs. I expect 100% of the entries there need to be plowed under by your mule team... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Piotrus: Ugh. If I wasn't dividing my time between the disaster that is CAT:NN and hitting overaged AfDs, then I'd be wanting to snag some of Timothy's MD. That being said, there must be some List of pinball games, ordered by subject, to which redirects would be appropriate? Ravenswing 06:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ravenswing: I did find List of pinball machines but I can't say I am impressed by it. Is this list even useful for anyone? And does it meet criteria for lists, or it just a catalogue? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My only regret about this is I didn't nominate it.   // Timothy :: talk  05:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TimothyBlue: Nothing lost! Check the category I linked just above, I am sure you can pick an article at random and it won't be much better... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Piotrus I'm gonna need a sizable quantity of Code Red Mountain Dew and Flaming Hot Cheetos tomorrow :)   // Timothy :: talk 

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio 12:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Nu Thway (season 2)

Pan Nu Thway (season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:TVSHOW. It does air on a nation station, but my WP:BEFORE turned up nothing, but I will happily change my vote to keep if anyone can find WP:RS to establish WP:N.   // Timothy :: talk  14:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  14:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  14:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This TV show is very old and far many year. Before nomination sources were completed and other sources were deleted a few year ago. So there is only two sources.SoeThiha5 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Five years ago is not remotely "very old," not when TV shows have been around for nearly ninety years. No significant coverage in evidence. Ravenswing 11:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since it fails the notability guidelines. The show it's a season of is barley notable on it's own. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio 12:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Nu Thway (season 1)

Pan Nu Thway (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:TVSHOW. One ref is an interview with May Myint Moe, but it's about her and gives no info about show. It does air on a nation station, but my WP:BEFORE turned up nothing, but I will happily change my vote to keep if anyone can find WP:RS to establish WP:N.   // Timothy :: talk  14:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  14:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  14:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This TV show is very old and far many year. Before nomination sources were completed and other sources were deleted a few year ago. So there is only two sources.SoeThiha5 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Five years ago is not remotely "very old," not when TV shows have been around for nearly ninety years. No significant coverage in evidence. Ravenswing 11:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The show it's a season of is barley notable. The seasons for it clearly aren't. So, this is completely unnecessary fork. What little sources there are about this and the other season should be combined in the article about the show to help it not get deleted also. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ².O.^Boxing 13:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim VanNewhouse

Tim VanNewhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject has significant coverage to pass GNG, however, I do not think he's notable enough to merit an article. He fails WP:NBOX; didn't compete in the final of a national tournament or compete internationally as an amateur, and didn't achieve anything in the one fight he had as a professional. There's quite a few mentions on google of him as a manager, but nothing of any note, failing WP:ANYBIO – ².O.^Boxing 21:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, seems to pass WP:GNG and on the whole looks like a notable figure within the boxing industry. I will undertake further investigation and research before I make my vote.--HuntGroup (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Whether the subject meets NBOX or ANYBIO is irrelevant; that he meets the GNG (to which both those criterions are subordinate), with coverage beyond routine sports coverage, is. Ravenswing 11:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whac-A-Mole (House)

Whac-A-Mole (House) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable episode of House M.D.. I did a Google search, but I only found User generated content and primary sources. The only sources were from Fandom, Blogspot, and Imdb.

Metacritic wouldn't help the article either, as it has almost no content besides a short plot summary

The episode is not notable, and has also been unsourced since May 2011. Koridas 📣 23:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have no real opinion as to whether or not this article should be kept, but as far as third-party sources are concerned, I did manage to find an IGN review of the episode. Also, based on the show's template, it seems that literally every episode of the series outside of the first season has its own article. If this episode is not notable enough for inclusion, then there are likely several others that should be brought here as well. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only speaking to the point that House MD was a show routinely covered with many reviews and recaps per episode when it was released, eg with this episode, I can find reviews like IGN, AVClub but as a 2006 show, this is sorta where Google's archive search tends to break down. There is a fair question that many of the House episodes may need to be merged up to seasons (at minimum) save for those clearly notable, but that decision is beyond the scope of an AFD. --Masem (t) 18:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article is essentially just an un-referenced plot summary and I don't see it being anything other then that even with the IGN review. Ultimately IMO most or all of the articles about specific house episodes should just be in the article about the seasons that they are in. Otherwise, it's just going to be nothing but a bunch of long winded plot summaries and nothing much else, that won't be well maintained. Even for the "notable" ones. The rare exception maybe being the first and last episode of the show and maybe a few about episodes involving plot twists that were extremely important to the show, but that's it. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Does not have sources to meet any notability guidelines and does meet WP:WWIN/WP:PLOT.   // Timothy :: talk  05:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fry family (chocolate)

Fry family (chocolate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fry family that has just closed as a Delete. This version was AFD'd in 2007 with only three Keep ivotes and no Delete ivotes. I refer to this as a "version" as it is just a reworking of the family genealogy article that has just been deleted. The difference is a small unsourced three-sentence section about chocolate. One of the three sentences is not about chocolate, but about the type-setting foundry mentioned in its own following small section.

Just as it was in 2007, sourcing in this article is not pertinent to the chocolate business, but more of the genealogy sourcing. Comments were made then, that it needed a lot of work. In the ensuing 13 years, nothing substantive seems to have been done. Why keep this around, if there is no effort to make it viable to Wikipedia standards? — Maile (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I will note the family is also heavily involved in Bristol and Quaker affairs as well as being involved in the chocolate business (with four generations of people called Joseph Fry). At a minimum the Religious Society of Friends project should also be notified. --Erp (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nominator is absolutely correct: this kind of mostly primary genealogy sourcing does not establish notability for a family. Erp, nothing is relevant until it is noted by secondary sources, and those sources will have to make the case for really the family as a whole, a few generations, not just one person. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Yep, the usual 2007-era keep close, with sentiments about how the article would surely pass muster just as soon as someone sourced it. Failed the GNG then, fails the GNG now. Enough is enough. Ravenswing 11:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio 12:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavesh (actor)

Bhavesh (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. He is an actor but doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR. A before search I conducted only links me mostly to YouTube & Pinterest. Celestina007 18:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG as "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and satisfies WP:NACTOR as the topic has had prominent roles in later movies like & P se Pyaar F se Farar and features in lead roles in the last two films, with the role in the latest ongoing film, Hawayein (2020).His latest bollywwod featuring in the lead role "Defultter" has had favorable reviews with acting of both the leads highly praised in mainstream media.IndiaBulez (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above editor is the creator of the article.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt: Already deleted twice through AfD. The creator used a different title to conceal the article deletion history. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are Correct! but, Bhavesh is an actor he completed two Bollywood films. if you feel free, you can edit and make the article better (Actor stub ) added. IndiaBulez (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IndiaBulez, merely being an actor doesn’t guarantee a stand alone article. They have to satisfy a notability criteria of which subject of your article fails to satisfy any known notability criteria. Furthermore @Umakant Bhalerao, thanks for the observation. I didn’t catch that earlier. Celestina007 07:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IndiaBulez:, I think you should not have created this page again when you already knew it had been deleted two times in Afd and should have waited until the notability was achieved. Just being an actor does not mean that the person described is necessarily an appropriate encyclopedia subject. I don't see any substantial change in the article since the last Afd and it still fails WP:NACTOR.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Played the lead roles in several films and has notable sources.[13][14][15] TamilMirchi (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @TamilMirchi: the sources you provided are either press releases or paid content and not independent of him.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt. This is all I needed to know to !vote Delete. This should also be deleted Draft:Bhavesh Kumar. Perhaps the closing admin can discuss this with the creator (if it is the same person) 3 deletes, 1 current article at AfD and a draft is a over the top.   // Timothy :: talk  05:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: Not only this version but salting "Bhavesh Kumar" as well, although I warrant the fanboys will come up with some other permutation. A bit on the ridiculous side at this point. Ravenswing 12:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - consensus already established to delete from previous AfDs; I can't see any valid reason to overturn Spiderone 13:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt I agree with everyone else who has voted the same way as to why. This actor fails WP:NACTOR and the past consensus about it from the other AfDs should have been respected. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Western Shore of Maryland

Western Shore of Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GEOLAND. This article has no references that still exist, and has needed more since early 2012. I cannot find any reliable sources that give this region significant coverage. AviationFreak💬 18:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 18:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 18:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete This is not a real thing, though press people will sometimes use the phrase in contrast with the Eastern Shore, which is a real region. But as someone who lives in the area, it's just not a term that anyone uses with any consistent meaning, if at all. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Government agencies in Nepal. Tone 20:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nepal government organizations

List of Nepal government organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List of web links violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If we remove the links, then it's just a list of government agencies which is already covered by Category:Government agencies of Nepal. –dlthewave ☎ 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTDUP; that a complementary category exists is not a deletion argument. Whether web links should be included is an editorial decision also not relevant to deletion (we just shouldn’t have lists that ONLY contain web links). postdlf (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging with Government agencies in Nepal seems to be the correct outcome here, as the two pages cover the same topic and scope. The final page should be retitled to either Government agencies of Nepal or List of government agencies of Nepal. postdlf (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Anything notable enough for a category is notable enough for a list article, as it aids in navigation. Category:Lists of government agencies by country shows many articles like this. None of them have links to websites. Not sure if that's useful or not. I'm thinking if anyone wanted to see that they'd click a link to the main article and then go from there. I'm going to remove them. Dream Focus 02:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Government agencies in Nepal. nirmal (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Essentially a description of bureaucratic divisions of a national government which is clearly of general interest. Of course the entry may benefit from improvements or additional data but is a useful source for a range of people looking for basic info on the country. Cheers Yipee8f93k (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Government agencies in Nepal. Content should be retained somewhere per WP:CLN and WP:SUMMARY.   // Timothy :: talk  06:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Government agencies in Nepal. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio 13:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Condra

Julie Condra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable actress, even the only mentions of her are in relation to her husband and notability is not inherited. Her career doesn't apepar to have ever taken off and she has primarily only ever held minor roles in the 80s and 90s. I'm not sure what the Young Artist Award is but I can't find a source for it anyway. Praxidicae (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For someone to think Julia Condra is non-notable must be either born in the late 90's or 2000. Is like saying Kimberly Hart ( Amy Jo Johnson ) the first Pink Power rangers is non-notable.

Julie Condra had appeared Circus of the Stars which was an annual television special, broadcast by the CBS network which featured many leading movie and television stars. You need some level of fame to be there as you can see the list is all filmed with superstars, famous or above average level actors/actress. Julie Condra would be a above level fame or even famous actress

Julie Condra have been in the 11th Youth in Film Awards which was nominated for Best Young Actress in a Daytime Drama for her work Santa Barbara.

Julie Condra role as Madeline Adams Wonder years still have views as high as 150,000 132,000, 390,000, 420,000, In English, Spanish, Korean, Portuguese. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=madeline+adams+wonder+years

It's so weird to me that someone would say she is a non-notable actress. My only guess you have to be born in the late 90s and 2000's. I was born in early 80's and those from 70's, 60's, 50's would surely know her ( not necessarily true for many ) if you remember her role as Madeline Adams, her videos still have 100,000 to 420,000 views and with even videos of her translated even in Spanish, Korean, Portuguese. Her role as Madeline Adams from the Wonder years was remembered by many young people, teens, young adults for mainly being the new hot girl in high school that fell madly in love with Kevin (and we were envious of Kevin ). You only need to look at the Youtube comments how all the boys fantasize her role. As Madeline Role, her older age, maturity, but with this beautiful angelic, innocent cute face that made every kid, teen and young guy fell in love. I would say she was most famous around 1990 to 1992, she kind of started to become less popular after her marriage with Brandon Douglas ( who isn't famous but recognizable, somewhat famous perhaps) who were some girls dream boy. True that she fell into Irrelevance after the year 2000, I have not heard from her after 1998, and her last movie I watched was Crying man. You would only later see her with 1 or 2 episode of here and there although with plenty of time on screen involving her story. Saying she is non-notable is like saying Kimberly Hart, the first American female pink power rangers is a non-notable actress, she kind of fell into irrelevancy after her first power ranger series 1993-1995, after she left power rangers I don't even know where she went to. Is she a non-notable actress just because people born in 90's and 2000's who never enjoyed the first Power rangers. I personally also don't know these new Power ranger actress. For many people before 90's, 2000's generation we would know people like Julie Condra and Kimberly Hart better than these new 2000's Disney actress or Games of Thrones actress. Even if they are not as popular as today they are still our childhood from the early 90's. Shadohaw (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm finding surprisingly little on her, because I recall (I'm an old guy) significant print coverage on her around the time of Eerie, Indiana, where she had a major role. But all I can find now is mostly listings of her name as a cast member in her various series, and a coverage of her Young Artist Award nomination in an undetermined 1990 issue of The Hollywood Reporter. No !vote from me at this time. TJRC (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For someone to think Julia Condra is non-notable must be either born in the late 90's or 2000 It seems to me she only seems notable to some born in the 80s who grew up with the Wonder Years. --John B123 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The passionate advocacy above notwithstanding, I don't see any evidence the subject meets the GNG, and she certainly doesn't make WP:NACTOR, never having had a starring role in a significant film or show. None of the sources in the article pass muster: they're either unreliable (Facebook, social media, blogs) or namedrops/casual mentions. As far as her purportedly seminal role in The Wonder Years, she appeared in only four out of 115 eps, and 31 other actors appeared in more over the course of the series. That the actress is part of User:Shadohaw's childhood I wouldn't argue against, but being part of an editor's childhood isn't in any Wikipedia notability criteria. Ravenswing 12:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ravenswing. Despite the article creator's claims, there is no evidence to suggest that the role on The Wonder Years helps satisfy any of the criteria given at WP:NACTOR, and there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS portion of the article creator's argument is irrelevant. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I totally agree with the other delete voters. The article fails WP:NACTOR since she was never in a significant role and also WP:GNG because there's no in-depth reliable sources about her. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wayne

Robert Wayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I cannot find any sources to support WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. No significant coverage by any independent source, no major label, no charting, no awards. The sources in the article are to him apparently "interviewing" himself, and one of his song videos, both self-published to YouTube. Schazjmd (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I searched Google and JSTOR for his given name and his stage name and did not find WP:RS. I also searched US's Billboard 200 as per WP:CHARTS to fulfil C2 in WP:BAND, but could not find him listed. He is self-published and does not significant coverage, so does not fulfil WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gkkworks

Gkkworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Absolutely terrible primary or PR-like sources and utterly non-notable firm. No reliable, independent sources can be found that establish its notability; only passing mentions in gutter journalism sites. The creator has a problematic history of creating other such articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperial 3, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovery Offices, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSA Architects. This one, like all of them, fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ORG completely and ridiculously. MaysinFourty (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Spiderone 22:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater@ 21:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Depths (novel)

Depths (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BOOK. Has been listed as non-notable since December 2017. Lettler^hello 16:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 16:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 16:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 16:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is in poor shape, but there are plenty of reviews in reliable sources. Just a quick search brings up ones in The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Independent. And that is just English sources, which already passes the WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. I haven't even looked into the likely Swedish sources under its Swedish name of Djup. Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reviews cited by Rorshacma. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article needs improvements but that is no reason for delete. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources provided by Rorshacma show notability. Article does need work.   // Timothy :: talk  06:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the sources Rorshacma has found are sufficient to pass WP:NBOOK #1. I shall attempt to work them into the article. Wham2001 (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SSA Architects

SSA Architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Utterly non-notable firm. No in-depth independent, reliable references can be found that establish its notability. The creator has a problematic history of creating other articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperial 3 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovery Offices. This one fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:ORG. MaysinFourty (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Spiderone 22:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Couldn't find anything that would establish notability. Delete per nom.   // Timothy :: talk  06:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Offices

Discovery Offices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Bogus article; bogus references. It's written as if it exists. Even if it once existed on paper, that paper seems to be have been lost. No in-depth reliable sources can be found. All references cited are primary or PR that lead nowhere. It's a mystery how the article has stood since 2013. I'm going through the creator's problematic history (also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperial 3). This fails all notability guidelines and, further, bears no resemblance to reality. MaysinFourty (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I went to the coordinates on the map that are listed in this article, another building stands there. This building doesn't exist. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - due to hoax concerns Spiderone 22:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 21:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here is the Emporis entry. Does not seem to be hoax, but just yet another stalled Indian high-rise construction project.Jklamo (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Tone 20:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dystopia (book)

Dystopia (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

In my opinion, this is not notable enough per Wikipedia's notability guidelines on books (WP:NB). The author doesn't appear to be notable enough for his own article (was deleted in 2019) - and I can't find any independent sources for either the book or the author. Thsoe current sources on the page are mostly references to the book itself, or websites advertising/selling the book (see WP:BOOKSTORE). Seagull123 Φ 15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 15:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - I agree that there is currently no coverage of the book in reliable sources. However, it just was released in e-book format, and won't be released in physical form for another month, so it could simply be a case of being WP:TOOSOON. Sending it back to draft until its actual full release might be helpful, to see if any reviews in reliable sources wind up coming out in the near future. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Agree with above, reliable sources are hard to find. In Google books, the author tells, "reading the book might feel so fragmented"... and I think this book needs more time and responses from his peers in the town planning field.--Whiteguru (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan Feher (diplomat-scholar)

Zoltan Feher (diplomat-scholar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable. Not a diplomat. Possibly an academic. scope_creep^Talk 15:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Way WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this PhD student. The best case for GNG notability is via the Daily Iowan (the student newspaper of the University of Iowa) and Diplomata sources, but I'm not seeing the former as significant coverage, and I'm uncertain of the independence of the latter. The article has severe WP:PROMO issues, and overall I think the case for WP:TNT is stronger than that for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Robert McClenon: who dealt with drafts of the same article at AfC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article. Article is well-written and well-referenced. There are 16 sources on the page and 7 selected publications. Sources confirm notability, especially Washington Times and Daily Iowan.Jean-Michel Belmondo (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC) — Jean-Michel Belmondo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not they don't. The whole thing is crock, a lie. He is not a diplomat nor a scholar. The whole thing is fake. scope_creep^Talk 15:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post reference is a passing mention, confirming that he was press secretary. Not a diplomat. The Daily Iowan is a passing mention as well. The pigeon gets more coverage, and even that paper confirms he was a press secretary, a low level position, and only because he was visiting the local library. Not a diplomat. scope_creep^Talk 15:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that we examine the article and its references thoroughly, and with some knowledge about diplomacy. The subject of the article served as a professional diplomat for 12 years, as the references confirm. A press secretary at an embassy is a diplomatic function, filled by professional diplomats. I have re-read both news articles mentioned. Neither are passing mentions, just the contrary. Both The Daily Iowan article and the Washington Times article are solely dedicated to describing this person's diplomatic work and innovative approaches. The Washington Times article sites no less than the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to this end. On the page, there are 14 other sources and 7 publications to confirm that this person is notable as both a diplomat and an academic.Jean-Michel Belmondo (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We will go through the references, using the standard table. scope_creep^Talk 17:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion struck as both Jean-Michel Belmondo and article creator Anita Hernandez-García have been confirmed as sockpuppets of Zoltanfeher

• Weak Delete for now in the absence of the history. The article is blatantly promotional, and the subject appears to have some success in churnalism and in making himself famous for being famous in a small way. It appears that the subject and others are trying to use Wikipedia to promote the subject's career and views for some ulterior agenda. The draft that I reviewed was deleted at the request of its author, and now a new article has been created. Was the draft deleted in order to delete my comments? I review a lot of drafts, and have requested that this draft be undeleted to my email, both for my comparison and to see what my comments were that evidently needed to be hidden. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have seen the deleted version. The deleted draft and this article are almost identical, and the draft is unmistakably an autobiography. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither embassy press secretary nor doctoral students are likely levels of accomplishment for notability, and a brief puff piece in the Moonie Times isn't good enough to counter that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zoltanfeher. That is, the article is an autobiography by a sockpuppeteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Puffery and self-promotion, with no actual evidence that any notability standard is met. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and it does not seem that AfD is the place to resolve issues with respect to how this subject should be named or what it should be grouped with. BD2412 T 00:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illyrian (South Slavic)

Illyrian (South Slavic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason Zixt2010 (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is misleading. Illyrian language was a name sometimes used to refer to Croatian in the 15-19th centuries. This is evident from a list of Croatian dictionaries: List of Croatian dictionaries and the list of Croatian grammars: Croatian-language grammar books in Wikipedia. See also the standard work on Slavic lexicography by Edward Stankiewicz “Grammars and Dictionaries of the Slavic Languages from the Middle Ages Up to 1850”, originally published in 1984, latest edition is from 2016.

The article offers no sources for the claims it makes. There are two external links in the article. One links to a website which describes the grammar by Bartol Kašić as the first grammar of the Croatian language. Stankiewicz describes this grammar as follows, at page 77: “Croatian Grammars 17th-18th Century Cassius, Bartholomeus [Kašić, Bartol], Institutionum linguae illyricae libri duo, 2 vols., Rome 1604. K.’s grammar, written in Latin and modelled on popular Latin grammars (especially on those of Manuzio and Alvarez), deals with orthography, phonetics, declension (vol. I) and verbal forms (vol. II). K. aimed at the creation of a unified Croatian language, but in effect he codified čakavian with an admixture of štokavian elements. The grammar served as a base for later grammarians up to Appendini.”

The second link is to a Bulgarian history book. The page referred to in the article says that Petar Bogdan, apart from his native language {Bulgarian} mastered classical and contemporary languages - Illyrian {Croatian}, Old Bulgarian {Old Church Slavonic}, Russian, Vlach {Romanian}, Turkish and Italian. {The modern language names are in curly brackets.} It also says that Bogdan was held in high regard by the esteemed Croatian literary figure Rafael Levaković and that he collaborated with Levaković on editing and publishing of Illyrian liturgical books.

It is clear from the list of Croatian dictionaries and grammars in Wikipedia, and in Stankiewicz, that names formerly used as synonyms for the Croatian language were Illyrian, Dalmatian, Slavic (slovinski) etc. Other South Slavic languages were not called Illyrian, though they were called different names as well: eg. Carniolan and Windisch for Slovenian.

This article is nominated for deletion AfD. It had already been marked for deletion, but the deletion tag was removed within 7 days. The article can’t be fixed through normal editing. It may be possible to have a redirection, where Illyrian language redirects to the Croatian language, just like Bohemian language redirects to the Czech language article. However, this is not a solution here, because there was an ancient Illyrian language.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as pointed out in the articles talk, this a historical description of an obsolete term, if the article would be misleading, it could be cured by renaming, however some short article titles does not necessarily imply the case the nominator thinks, since it does not say South Slavic would be Illyrian, just refers to the historical association of it, etc. The article may be improved with sources, as for the reasons listed here we should not delete as well the Illyrian movement article, which was as well a South Slavic cultural movement (shall it be scientifically true or not the connection to Illyrians, on such ground many other issues may be debated or to be judged uncertain, but it does not mean these did not exist, e.g.).(KIENGIR (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose, if there are errors in the seminal page creation then these can be adjusted by anybody but the removal of the article would not he helpful. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could the proposer clarify the policy grounds for the proposed deletion? It seems there are multiple POVs clashing here, but I don't think an AfD discussion is the right forum for settling such matters. The article certainly needs a thorough going-over, to remove the many instances of polemic or worse (and I am mindful here of the edit history and blocked status of the creating editor) as well as at least some of the unsupported statements, but that doesn't in and of itself necessitate deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DoubleGrazing for the question on the policy grounds for the proposed deletion. Apologies in advance for the long answer, but it may make things clearer (I’ll also include it in the article’s talk page if you think that is the more appropriate location):

The reason for deletion is POV. Illyrian language was a name used to refer to the Croatian language in the 15-19th centuries (other names were used – refer to Stankiewicz pp. 77-93). The article makes unsourced claims in almost every sentence, and for that reason it cannot be improved. At best, it can be changed as a redirection to the Croatian language, but I consider that is not a good option because there was an ancient Illyrian language. The better option is for the Croatian language redirection to occur in the Illyrian language disambiguation page, and for this article to be deleted.

Going through each sentence of the article:

“The Illyrian language was a common name of the South Slavic languages…” Unsourced statement. POV. The standard reference, Stankiewicz, has Illyrian as referring to Croatian only; no other South Slavic language was referred to as Illyrian.

“… before the emergence of Slavistics and Cyrillo-Methodian Studies, and especially during the Ottoman period.” Unsourced statement.

“It was imposed as a common language as a result of Catholic propaganda in the Balkans in the 17th century.” Unsourced statement. POV. Illyrian was used as early as the 15th century to refer to Croatians and the Croatian language. This has nothing to do with Catholic propaganda. See the article talk’s page for more details.

“ In the 18th century it was replaced by the Slavonic-Serbian.[1]” The link, which talks about Petar Bogdan, does not support the statement. Illyrian was used to refer to the Croatian language until the second half of the 19th century (Stankiewcz). The Wikipedia article on Slavonic-Serbian correctly states that the Serbian recension of Church Slavonic was replaced in the 18th century by Slavonic-Serbian. Illyrian has nothing to do with this.

“Its base is Dubrovnik literature and Kotor literature from the Bugarštica,” Unsourced statement.

“and its first representative is Dinko Zlatarić.” Unsourced statement. The Wikipedia article on Dinko Zlatarić correctly states that he wrote in Croatian and Italian languages.

“Bartol Kašić can be considered the father of this language.” Unsourced statement. POV and possibly original research. Illyrian was used to refer to Croatians and the Croatian language before Bartol Kašić. Kašić was the first to write a grammar with the word Illyrian in the title, but as the second link states, that book was the first Croatian grammar book.

“In 1595, during the Long Turkish War, he became a Jesuit. From 1609 to 1633 he lived in Dubrovnik. In 1613-1614 and 1618-1619 he was on a mission in Bosnia, Serbia and Eastern Slavonia.” Unsourced statement. Irrelevant to the language, and already covered in the Wikipedia article on Bartol Kašić.

“In 1604 Institutionum linguae illyricae libri duo (the structure of the Illyrian language in two books; 200 pages) was published in Rome. Grammar is used as textbooks by Jesuits who have been sent on a mission in the Balkans. Bartol Kašić adopts the South Slavic dialect of grammar in Shtokavian, pointing out as such the subdialect of Dubrovnik that is everyday for him. [2]” This passage requires a bit of rewriting to make it grammatical and understandable. The link clearly states that this book was the first Croatian grammar book. Calling it a “South Slavic dialect of grammar in Shtokavian” is misleading and POV.

In summary, there is nothing to improve in the article. If the unsourced statements are removed, there will be nothing left.

Zixt2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zixt2010. I'm no personal expert on South Slavs; my knowledge is better on North (or East/West) Slavs as I am Ukrainian from Lvov. Arguably one or the other depending whose narrative you adopt! :))) Either way, we did live together ancestrally in Austria-Hungary and we all at some point adopted Pan-Slavism. My point here is that this article can be salvaged by you contributing all of the above information with the sources. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Serbo-Croatian. The term Illyrian is already mentioned there in the section "Name". Or Croatian language, if other editors think this will be more apt. –Austronesier (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the Croatian language page I added the reference to Stankiewicz. Redirection to the Serbo-Croatian language is inappropriate in my view, because in Stankiewicz it is clear that the term Illyrian was not used to refer to the Serbian language. Zixt2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It sems this is a dispute about what is the closest language group. It isnot the province of WP to dcide such things, and certainly not at AfD. Rather, expand the articles to include to various views and sources. DGG ( talk ) 10:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to History of bitcoin. T. Canens (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin faucet

Bitcoin faucet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

notability per WP:GNG not established, only covered as novelty in reputable media Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non notable neologism. Crypto currency articles tend to be awkward little critters of adverts and spam Fiddle Faddle 17:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the WaPo link is a bad source, since it is actually a blog, and not covered by the journalistic standards of printed WaPo articles. ---Ysangkok (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the GavinTech blog is a bad source, because it is authored by Gavin Andresen, which was running a bitcoin faucet himself. So it is primary. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure - a couple of passing Bloomberg mentions [16][17] are all I can find in the mainstream press. But it has some coverage in academic papers, some of which aren't trash, and in Digital Gold by Nathaniel Popper. It's pretty minor, but it's an interesting historical thing. I'm not sure it warrants a standalone article. Perhaps a mention in History of bitcoin - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These are notable part of early bitcoin history and the sources are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. There are also other mentions in media, interviews, etc when people got bitcoin from Gavin's faucet, etc. Here Wired talks about Gavin Andresen's early bitcoin faucet. There were others as well. Plenty notable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: the Wired piece just mentions the faucet in passing, with a single sentence, with no actual details about it. There is nothing to cite from that article, except the fact that it existed. It's not sufficient for an article. It does not become notable history just become you claim it is. Other sources do not exist just because you claim they do. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources in Google Books. So many hits in google news it would be tedious to search through them all. Did you do any search prior to nomination? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf, How about you add them and then suggest the discussion be reconsidered? That tends to be much more productive than this. Perhaps you've done so already. Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, i havent yet and I am going to sleep. Maybe tomorrow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found some reliable sources which talk about the concept: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] and [25]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two are crypto sites. The third appears to be a blog. The fourth is a passing mention (p10). The fifth is pretty good actually, if short. The sixth and seventh are self-published books. The eighth is a self-published book that imitates the style of the For Dummies books. This suggests that your judgement on what's a reliable source could do with some work - but the Springer book source is probably usable - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: did you actually buy the Springer book? It costs a hundred bucks for me. I wonder if somebody could access it for free from university. I doubt it would cover faucets more than in passing. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Superastig: like David mentions, all those sources are unreliable, except maybe Springer. But the Springer source doesn't actually seem to mention faucets, so why did you link it? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got a look at someone else's copy. The text actually has a several-paragraph section about bitcoin faucets and describing their security implications. It looked a good source to me. Still not convinced it's enough to stand up a standalone article, but if it gets merged somewhere that source would be fine wherever it ends up - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to History of bitcoin. Since it doesn't seem notable enough for a stand alone article, but still has significance as a subject in relation to bitcoin. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to History of bitcoin. Not everything about bitcoin is notable on its own. Wm335td (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coje Ya Menia (creature)

Coje Ya Menia (creature) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and does not present encyclopedic information WP:INDISCRIMINATE.   // Timothy :: talk  13:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This creature crops up in cryptozoology publications from legitimate publishers. I added some information to the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vexations' comments throughout. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the subject does come up in cryptozoological publications, but that doesn't mean we can use those sources. It cites On the Track of Unknown Animals for example, but that book is unusable pseudoscience. One acceptable way source articles about mythical creatures, is to source it to reliable secondary sources that discuss their mythography in a scholarly way. No such sources have been provided for this subject, nor do any appear to exist, per my searches. Vexations (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Author request, I am relying the request of the author ([26]) that this be draftified.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep :i) Notability

The Original referrer of the Coje Ya Menia, Ilse von Nolde is notable person, his book is notable, thus the creature while being discussed in the same book while having 'significant coverage', multiple reliable secondary sources which are 'independent of the subject', is notable, fulfilling WP:GNG and WP:N.(also in same way, Ingo Krumbiegel and Ilse Esdorn are notable along with their works.

ii) WP:INDISCRIMINATE

The article is neither any of the 'Summary-only descriptions of works', 'Lyrics databases', 'Excessive listings of unexplained statistics' or 'Exhaustive logs of software updates' thus not violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

iii) WP:BEFORE

Also, in spite of WP:BEFORE C . being very much pertinent, the AfD nomination was made.

iv) Alternative of Deletion

The article does not violate any 14 points mentioned in WP:DEL-REASON or any of G1-G14 or A1-A11 per WP:CSD. Further per WP:NOTBUILT, since the article has been in the process of improvement, also per WP:DEL#CONTENT, it should be kept.

v) Good Faith and New Comer

Besides I request to consider WP:FAITH and WP:DBN.

Comment: I have already requested the article to be moved to draftspace since in the mean time I could not execute the planned enrichment of the article due to reigning exigent situation, otherwsise there would have been no requirement for this debate. AranyaPathak (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I made a few changes to the article per sources that I added. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  TheBirdsShedTears, Bernard Heuvelmans and Willy Ley cryptozoologists, so these are pseudoscientific sources. WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and WP:FRINGE apply. Unless you can find some reliable sources, the entire article is based on pseudoscience. Vexations (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I am convinced with the sources added to article in question. This is not a scientific term or species, but only a mysterious or legendary creature that could be retained on Wikipedia regardless of pseudoscientific sources as you see. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  TheBirdsShedTears, We cannot use a science fiction like Philip José Farmer author as a reliable source. Characters in works of fiction can have an article, but the fiction itself is not a reliable source, we need secondary sources. So in this case, we would need a reliable secondary source that discusses Heuvelmans, Ley's and Framer's work. For example, Mr. Darcy is not entirely sourced to Pride and Prejudice, but to scholarly sources that analyze the book. We have nothing like that here. Vexations (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Better to wait for more AfD participants to decide the fate of the article. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am little concerned about systemic bias with this set of related nominations of cryptids. We're credulous of every newspaper report of a Loch Ness Monster sighting as a good secondary source, but it looks to me like we're dismissive of other cultures' cryptid reports as pseudoscience. I respect Vexations' research into this and it may be that this cryptid doesn't pass GNG. But I see the difference between this cryptid and the Loch Ness Monster as a difference in degree, not in kind. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge reduced version to List_of_cryptids#Aquatic_or_semi-aquatic. The only source that meets WP:N requirements and is WP:V is Ley (1959) Exotic Zoology. This is enough to demonstrate that it has been discussed outside cryptozoology circles (Ley was a postwar general science writer) but not enough to demonstrate GNG coverage for an independent article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Eggishorn, Willy Ley was a proponent of cryptozoology. I don't think that citing him demonstrate(s) that it has been discussed outside cryptozoology circles. Vexations (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vexations:, I think our article on Ley really places very WP:UNDUE emphasis on the crypto and pesudoscientific aspects of his writing. The actual source doesn't discuss the creature credulously, just says that this botanist recorded this thing that was spoken of in this place. Labeling him as a proponent of cryptozoology is also anachronistic since his work predates the field as we know it today but that is an argument for Ley's page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Eggishorn, in what other context than cryptozoology could Ley have discussed the Coje Ya Menia? Not aerospace engineering, certainly? Vexations (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable fictional monster. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 10:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: one would expect a creature with a Bantu name to appear in sources about Bantu myth. Nothing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio 13:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McHugh (Author)

Paul McHugh (Author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about an author and journalist that fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Some of the sources added to the article are self-published and articles he wrote about some stuffs.

From a search on GNEWS, results are barely accessible. Lapablo (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--None of the articles are self-published. Emitchell62000 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)emitchell62000[reply]

--Two of the books are, and I can certainly remove these, although this does not seem to be a requirement in any of the Wikipedia documentation. Emitchell62000 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)emitchell62000[reply]

--Can you please explain what you mean by "barely accessible"? I have cited quite a few articles that are easily available from notable newspapers; a search of Google News using the author's name and San Francisco Chronicle produces results that are quite accessible: https://news.google.com/search?q=%22paul%20mchugh%22%20%22san%20francisco%20chronicle%22&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen Emitchell62000 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)emitchell62000[reply]

--Articles written for the Miami Herald are not available online. I can remove this mention if you object to it for this reason. Emitchell62000 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)emitchell62000[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, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create

• Delete: I'm seeing nothing that passes the notability bar. Ravenswing 16:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The sourcing in the article is primarily by McHugh and not about McHugh. The only coverage I could find that would contribute towards notability was this this. There's not enough to get over the bar for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:PRIMARY - over 20 of the sources cited are by the subject himself. That's not coverage about the person. We have never published original research, and in 2020, everybody knows we don't provide a free resume service. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio 13:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Hussain (politician)

Tahir Hussain (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG on multiple counts: WP:BLPCRIME (not convicted), WP:NPOL (only a councillor, not an MLA, so he's not notable). Also blatant violations of WP:BLP. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable politician is defines as A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Which is the case.--User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 13:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • श्रीमान २००२, please see WP:NPOL and WP:BLPNAME. And the other points I have listed above. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• weal deletewhilst there seems to be some coverage it mostly seems to be about one event, and that is a criminal allegation. Really not a very notable minor political figure.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The AfC has also previously been declined by SamHolt6: Draft:Tahir Hussain Corporator. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete based on the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. This individual has substantive coverage, but all of it is related to an accusation of a crime, which he has yet to be convicted for. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't find single source from the article that is talking about him without making significant mention of Delhi riots. Currently we are better off with delete per WP:BLP1E. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear cut WP:BLP1E. (t · c) buidhe 20:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. If convited I think we will have enough for this pol to pass GNG. I do not think he is notable on his own per WP:NPOL. Wm335td (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: based on WP:BLPCRIME and [[WP:BLP1E[[.   // Timothy :: talk  00:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable Devokewater@ 09:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:BLP1E, the Tahir Hussain case might be marginally notable at the point (although I'd recommend waiting taking WP:BLPCRIME into consideration) but the person himself does not meet notability. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Disagree this article should be kept as Tahir Hussain is an important figure in 2020 Delhi riots and has enough press coverage and Crime list to have a Crime Template and he was also Member of the Legislative Assembly (India) from Aam Aadmi Party who later was thrown out of party for his involvement as a criminal Branstarx3 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC) ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]}[reply]