Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goecken, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Durham calls it a railroad station named for a local rancher on the Southern Pacific Railroad. Not listed in GNIS. Nothing to indicate a community and a very few mentions regarding a station of that name. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A search of 1:24,000 scale USGS historical maps found a lack of any indication of there having ever been a populated place or community at the location specified for Goecken, California. The name Goecken was not even found on these maps. The only map reference to this name that was found is a lone, dead end, country road on current Google maps called Goecken Road. Found a lack of any obvious evidence of notabillity, WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG, and for existence of populated place associated with Goecken, California in either Google Books, JSTOR, the Proquest History Vault, EBSCO History Reference Center, and Google Search. Paul H. (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No post office. Confirmed to not be in GNIS. Alameda County Place Names states that it was a railroad station on the Southern Pacific, so WP:STATION applies. Searching Newspapers.com for "Goecken in California" and "Goecken Southern Pacific in California" yielded nothing. However, searching Newspapers.com for "Goecken Western Pacific in California" yields at least one hit indicating that Goecken was a station ([1]). It looks like "Alameda County Place Names" was wrong about which railroad Goecken was on. Goecken is not a legally recognized locale, so #1 WP:GEOLAND does not apply. There is only trivial coverage of this railroad station, so it does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for Real Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

92 Google hits. Sources are primary, trivial, or about other things (e.g. an obituary). There have been problems maintaining NPOV, which seem to me to be down to the lack of substantive coverage in RS. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Guy - given the lack of reliable 3rd party sources and mentions this would appear to be the best course of action with this page.Tonyinman (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are six respectable independent references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The organisation is notable and regularly pops up in the UK media commenting on educational matters. Not sure what's the deal with the 92 Google Hits, but there are 290 mentions of it on the BBC website alone. Number 57 23:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @JzG: without commenting on the merits of the nomination, a raw Google search for the organization name (in quotes) gives me half a million hits. Could you please tell us how to reproduce your result? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Mackensen, bizarre, because I got the 92 I listed, and I now get 87. [2] Guy (help! - typo?) 13:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  JzG, I get "About 571,000 results (0.59 seconds)". I cannot account for the discrepancy, but it seems to be on your end? Mackensen (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Mackensen, in a private session I get 100 unique. Most odd. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mackensen: did you put the name in quotation marks? In any case, Google gives weird numbers (eg I got over 89,000) but if you start looking at how many pages of actual mentions there are you often find not many. In this case there were about 4 1/3 pages, not even 1,000. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought such counting had been done away with on Wikipedia many years ago. I'll explain once again. When you perform a Google search the results are first truncated (it used to be at 1000 results but may have changed since) and then Google eliminates duplicates. This results in a number that has no bearing at all on reality. For example, if I search for "Donald Trump" I get 128 hits displayed. Do you really believe that there are only 128 mentions of "Donald Trump" on the Internet? Can we please stop throwing around such numbers without understanding what they mean. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just saw three hits in Google Books testifying to their right-wing politics. Here is another hit in an educational monograph; this is short but valuable; whoa they made it into a textbook; etc. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to have plenty of sources supporting notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable organisation. Plenty of sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the aforementioned comments. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| [gossip] || 16:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A disambiguation page that lists a bunch of languages, like Arabic. Turkish and Pashto. What is an "Islamic language"? It's not a synonym for any of the languages listed there, it's a vague descriptive phrase that can mean everything and nothing. This has also been discussed on the talk page. – Uanfala (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for closer The page has been moved to Islamic languages. The final result (obviously "delete" per WP:SNOWBALL) needs to be applied to both Islamic language and Islamic languages. –Austronesier (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. This is a ridiculous dab that does not disambiguate anything. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless and vaguely racist. Spicy (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There doesn't seem to be anything actually known by this name. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NPOV; such a page is hugely misleading. Languages do not adhere to a religion. Spiderone 22:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. There's probably a better way these languages could be in a list together, but this clearly isn't it and heck if I know what is. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Arabic instead 2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838 (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. None of these languages is called the "Islamic language", and except for Arabic, they are only somehow vaguely associated to Islam; the criteria for what is included there are completely arbitrary, as we have found out in the talk page. No potential for a redirect, or a move to a coherent topic. –Austronesier (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Amongst other objections, this page does not disambiguate articles that might otherwise be known as "Islamic language". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete!, This is a very fake claim and misleading. Why not all the world languages? Em-mustapha 18:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted above, "Islamic langauge" is not a term because langauges are not intrinsically associated with religions. Not even Arabic. I believe that the user who created this page was banned from creating redirects, due to their propensity for making up terms.

  It's snowing! ☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️ –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a pile on at this point but I still wanted to cast a vote for WP:TNT Spudlace (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (see below) — Inqilābī (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Inqilābī and UserNumber: is there any chance you might have overlooked the fact that the list you've been working hard to expand in recent days has been up for deletion? – Uanfala (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It really wouldn't matter at this point anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who said I was working hard? I was just pointing out @Inqilābī:'s heavy bias in the article. He kept making up rules as he went along as to what constitutes as an Islamic language and showed POV by including dialects as separate or same language. But a point I would like to make is why is there a Jewish languages article? UserNumber (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish languages are the language spoken by the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group. Languages spoken by Jews are often referred to as "Jewish languages" in common parlance and scholarly literature. "Islamic language(s)" is quite arbitrary and made-up (any sources until now?), just as "Christian language(s)", "Buddhist language(s)" etc. would be. Compare also the lead of Jews with those of Muslims and Christians in order to see where the difference lies. You will certainly find the expressions "Islamic language" or "Christian language" in reliable sources, but in the sense of "style/diction/jargon characteristic of Islamic/Christian discourse". –Austronesier (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to support what Austronesier said, Russian is like 8th or 9th (I can't remember, but it's far up there) language spoken by Muslims. It would be really weird to include it in any kind of list like this though. Pure and simple, it's just not an "Islamic" language. BTW, I'd say the same goes for Mandarin Chinese. Which is in the list. Only like 0.45% of people in China are Muslims, and a much larger percentage of Chinese people speak the language. So, it's simply wrong and linguistic co-opting to say Mandarin Chinese is in any way "Islamic." When the bar is that low literally any language could be consider "Islamic." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: and @Adamant1:, good points I guess. UserNumber (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Adamant1, Austronesier, and Uanfala: please do not delete this article! To answer your queries and misgivings, “Islamic languages” is well-attested in literature. Just have a look at Google books on the subject (ignore some unrelated stuffs that have been included in the search result). Arabic is really not the only Islamic language; all languages whose speakers historically received Islamic revelation are called by scholars as Islamic languages. Islamic languages are ethnolects spoken by ethnoreligious groups all over the Old World, such as the Arab Muslims, Hui Chinese, Uyghurs, Bengali Muslims & Dakhini people, to name a few. — Inqilābī (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but any single voters don't "delete" articles. We just give opinions and the closer decides the best thing to do based on the evidence. It's not on any one user if an article gets deleted though. Since this is a consensus based system. People who think it should be keep are perfectly capable of making a reasoned, guideline based argument as to why. Personally, I'm of the opinion that maybe in a broad way there might be a few languages that academically could be considered "Islamic." I just don't think this is the way to construe it in an acceptable way for Wikipedia or that there is one. It would be fine for a personal blog or something though. Maybe even one of the alternative Wikipedia sites. It's to vague of a thing for Wikipedia though. This isn't the place for essays or original research. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: This article is not any essay or original research. I have included one reference thus far, and since this is a newly-created article, there is room for further improving it if given enough time! The article as it was originally written by its creator was a rubbish, but I have begun bettering it. Most importantly, however, this consensus should be nullified inasmuch as the users supported deleting the article based on the old revision in which the article was a disambiguation page and listed very few languages and lacked any citations. I think discussions should begin afresh reflecting its current status. Just be forbearing and give me a good while.

Furthermore, this article should be kept for two important reasons: 1) “Islamic languages” is a term actually used by scholars, as I said before; 2) This article is intended to have the same scope as that of Jewish languages. — Inqilābī (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research, as long as the topic is based merely on an analogy to Jewish languages. Even Wexler uses the term "Islamic languages" only as an ad hoc shorthand (intended to mean "non-Arabic languages spoken by Muslims", cf. p.346 of your source) for the purpose of his discussion of Arabic as a tool for expressing Jewish identity. –Austronesier (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

@Austronesier: If you think that "Islamic languages" is based merely on an analogy to Jewish languages, then you are mistaken. Just do Google search on the subject, and you will get many publications using the term. So I earnestly request you people to spare me some time so that I can add more relevant references (which contain no analogy to Jewish languages). Thanks. — Inqilābī (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong way to start an article. You cannot start with the vague idea of a new topic to salvage a page title of a botched obvious attempt to invent a topic, and only then begin to collect sources which potentially support the existence of the newly defined topic. A topic should be verifiable thing from the start. –Austronesier (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Does not really matter. Why not consider the article as is presented and intended now? And as I said, there is room for improving the article, even if the article originally began as a botched attempt. Please reconsider...! — Inqilābī (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is always the option of drafting it in your user space once it's deleted and then doing an AfC to get it put back in main space once it is acceptable. Although, I doubt it ever will be. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it though. There might very be another form of this that is drastically different, but along the same lines that will be acceptable. Drafting it as at least better then trying to appeal to us to change our votes. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the uses of the phrase that come up in search results, it's worth having a look at Mathglot's comment at Talk:Islamic languages#What is an Islamic language?. – Uanfala (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the aforementioned comments. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major Major (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable album. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources. The band is also non-notable, listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermassive (band). Hog Farm _Bacon 21:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - zero evidence of notability for the band and this album Spiderone 22:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Due to complete lack of media notice; do not redirect to the band because their article is being considered for deletion too. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 14:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. Absolutely nothing with which to construct even a basic stub article, and no point in redirecting the the band because that article almost certainly will be deleted or redirected as well. Richard3120 (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable album Spudlace (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supermassive (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Looks non-notable. Seems to fail WP:NBAND, I wasn't able to find anything outside of user-generated sources, blogs, and a few primary sources. Not seeing any notability here. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I couldn't find any secondary sources either. Just primary ones like these [3] [4] Spiderone 22:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hog Farm and Spiderone, or redirect to Jonathan Jones (although the sourcing in his article isn't better either).GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Short-lived band that came and went with almost no media notice, and is now only present in the typical streaming and retail links. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 14:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable band Spudlace (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Looks like we're in for a spot of inclement weather..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of royal guests at the coronation of Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Duplicate of List of participants in the coronation procession of Elizabeth II (which has the same source as this article) created by sock puppet and LTA IPs. DrKay (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's plainly not a duplicate. For example, the page in question has a section listing Members_of_foreign_royal_families who do not appear in the procession. As the coronation was extensively covered at the time and many books have been written about it since, the notability of the topic does not seem in question. As the procession was just a part of the coronation ceremony, the nomination does not seem to make much sense. It seems to be mainly a matter of WP:ADHOM, which is not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. The one source given only lists people who were expicitly in the procession. So, if they are not listed in the source, they should not be in the article at all, and if they are listed in the source then they were in the procession[5]. What you've said is blatantly and obviously false. DrKay (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources are only required for controversial claims and quotations – see WP:V and WP:NEXIST. Take Princess Astrid of Norway, for example. It seems easy to verify that she was there by consulting a source such as this, which also lists other royal guests. So, per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BEFORE - documentaries have been done about this very topic. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with the main coronation article - I agree with Davidson's assessment that this topic has been extensively covered by the media. If merged though, a hidden spoiler-like tag would do wonders to prevent the other article from getting cluttered.Garlicolive (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article should definitely be reformatted and more sources should be added, but this is a topic which passes LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Definitely a notable topic imo. BEFORE shows enough coverage to establish notability. No doubt the article requires to be reformatted and sourced better but that can be achieved by tagging too. Deletion is unnecessary. TheRedDomitor (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Doherty (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not show the subject is notable, only link is to IMDb. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next.js (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG.

Source review:

• [6], appears to be a crowdsourced site, not reliable
• [7] largely just an interview with one of the subject's creators, not independent
• [8] company website
• [9] unclear whether this should be considered independent or not, as the author is a Google employee, although they claim to have no direct connection to this project.
• [10], [11], [12], [13] Routine coverage of software updates that look like thinly veiled press releases
• [14] How-to that mentions Next.js but isn't significant coverage

Searching online I was able to find similar routine coverage, but no significant independent analysis. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Next.js is a fast-growing framework with a medium-to-high number of users,[15] being used (and financed!) by major high-traffic sites. That volume and visibility has to leave some trace in the newsphere; this is not your run-of-the-mill obscure library with little support from unknow authors. Vercel and Next.js have been noticed by Forbes,[16] german tech site t3n, [17][18] and other independent sources with some technical or contextual analysis. [19] [20]

Also I find trouble in nominator's argument that an interview with the author is not independent coverage. That would be the case if the interview was published by a media source controlled by the same or a connected company, but I don't see how that's the case with StackOverflow. An interview published by a third party is subject to independent editorial control, and provides evidence that the topic has been found interesting enough by an independent publisher to the point of giving it significant coverage in their website. Diego (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep, You forgot Nuxt.js which is based on Next and has less user share, but there's also AngularJS. I think the article is notable according to WP:NSOFT, with just those referencs supplied above. The references the article makes isn't a good reason to delete it, we can find others. Deleting the article would be unacceptable, at most Next.js could be merged into React (web framework) and Nuxt.js could be merged into Vue.js (AngularJS is definitely notable). This brings up a whole list of problems, though, and we would probably need to create a new page titled List of Node.js frameworks. Footlessmouse (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit vote to speedy keep - subject of multiple independent published and printed instruction books as per 3rd notability option on WP:NSOFT. See Google Books results above; here are a couple, which suffice, on their own, to establish notability.^[1][2][3] Footlessmouse (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Footlessmouse (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The online sources provided thus far are equally poor quality to the ones I analyzed at the outset. The written books' authors don't appear to be widely cited, and the publishing houses aren't exactly O'Reilly Media. Leafing through the two books whose previews I was able to open, they seem to be full of poorly-written, unrestrained praise such as Next.js is a rising star of modern JavaScript. It is a powerful tool that can save a lot of time by doing all the under-the-hood processing required to bring a universal applications [sic] to life (page 1 of Next.js Quick Start Guide) or from [Next.js]'s official site, here are some points explaining why it's a good choice (second page of Chapter 6 of Advanced Web Development with React). I don't see any indication that these books contain any analysis of the subject beyond how-to information and lists of benefits that may as well be PR copy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um??? Did you not read WP:NSOFT? It says it qualifies if it meets one of the criteria and it explicitly lists being the subject of multiple instruction books as one of the possibilities. There is no room for interpretation there. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Footlessmouse, NSOFT is an essay not policy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, I feel dumb about that, I can't believe I didn't notice that. I strike my vote and have no real policy arguments. My statement about forgetting Nust.js stands. If this page is to be deleted, you must delete that one as well, which is objectively far less notable. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I still strongly oppose this delete. I furthermore believe no one even moderately familiar with the topic (or web editing in general) will be likely to agree it should be deleted. It is not only notable in that area, it is absolutely and unobjectionably vital to it. So here is the grand policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if the common rules for GNC get in the way of improving or maintaining the encyclopedia, policy dictates they must be ignored. Those familiar with the topic realize it is hard to find ill-defined reliable sources for certain topics in freeware, but enough information exists to leave it as at least a stub for now. Also, the previews you have access to do not allow you to determine whether the books are reliable, even if multiple mistake were found. The quality of the intro is irrelevant to the book and is obviously there to help make sales. Anyways, I highly doubt you will get the votes to remove the article and I firmly believe that it is anti-productive to keep it cycling through AfD. Thanks. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is clearly lacking. There is a few books about it, but I don't think they are enough on their own and weirdly one of them was canceled by publisher before it came out. So, there doesn't seem to be anything to establish notability. PS, for API's, especially ones related to JavaScript, there are usually books etc. etc. about them. Their "freewareness" really has nothing to do with it, and I say that as someone who does JavaScript development and has also never heard of this either BTW. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone wants to use only my book references rather than searching on there own, let me add a few more, I was only going by WP:NSOFT at that time (also is Springer Publishing a good enough publisher?)^[1][2] Here's one in Japanese.^[3]. I found eight other books by Packt Publishing, but am not including them here. There are plenty of books. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have rewritten the page cutting out most of the cruddy sources and replacing them mostly with the Springer source and the Smashing Magazine articles. I believe those are reliable enough. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Adamant1 and Rosguill: are either of you willing to re-evaluate in light of the entirely new article? It is totally new and is properly cited. At this point, I believe it does meet WP:GNG, with significant coverage in at least two highly reliable sources that are independent of the topic. It is therefore, presumed to be notable. If you still disagree, what else do you think it needs? From what I see, I have addressed all major complaints and see no valid reason it should be deleted. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't tell for sure because of the paywall, but from looking at the chapter summaries for the sources published by Springer, they look like they limit themselves to being a how-to guide. Same goes for the Smashing Magazine articles. I don't know that it's possible to cobble together an article on the basis of how-to's without resorting to original research.

  Looking through pages for other React extensions, I'm left with the impression that it would probably be more encyclopedic to try to cover them together in an article, but also recognize that at this point there's already quite a few of them and thus there isn't a clear target for merging content from Next.js, nor would it be trivial to try to merge the existing articles. I'm thus honestly not terribly insistent on deleting this article, although I think that it does fall shy of notability guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rosguill:Thanks for letting me know there's a paywall, for whatever reason, I do not have one, maybe I'm logged in, I'm not on my VPN. There is plenty of information in the springer chapters (there's two) I posted just a few things and I think it's a little past stub status now, have you reviewed the new article? I rewrote it? There is no original research there, the Springer textbook chapter on Next provide a good introduction with information on not only what it is but what React is and why Next is used and it is done so in a textbook form which is easy to paraphrase into encyclopedic form. I will continue working on it. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Question which part of "In this chapter, we will learn about a framework called 'Next.js' that is used to build applications that are rendered on the server-side" (Thakkar 2020 "Next.js") sounds like it is restricted to a how to only? I'm super confused about your entire response. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with Rosguill about the books not being much for an article, there was an AfD a while back for a very similar thing that resulted in keep because supposedly software that has multiple books specifically written about it is notable. At least that's what the keep voters said and the closer seemed to agree. I'm not sure what AfD it was or where the guideline about it is or if there even is one. Maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about. That said, if there is such a guideline or consensus about it somewhere, I wouldn't know where the line is or if chapters devoted to it in multiple books would count. It is something to look into though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Are you just saying that without reviewed the article, or are you claiming the article I have rewritten is worthy of deletion? WP:NSOFT is obviously what was discussed. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note This AfD has devolved into opinions editors have on what they think the contents of the sources contain and how much they can be used to say without them having looked through them. Let us discuss the article and it's criteria. It is no longer a stub, there is no original research, it establishes WP:GNG, what am I missing? Footlessmouse (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in article, which I reviewed and you had no of knowing if I did or not, aren't good enough to establish notability IMO. Which is why I was brought up a prior example where an article about a piece of software was kept because it had books written about it. For some reason though you think what happened in a past AfD is "devolving into opinion" and not a good thing to keep the article based on. Which, frankly is sort of bizarre, but whatever. So, I struck the comment out. Given that, I stick by delete vote. Since the sourcing isn't enough and there isn't another basis to keep the article on. Although, there might have been, but oh well. I don't feel like doing the useless, un-constructive back and forth or people trying to control the direction of the discussion in the way your doing, the inevitable (or already existing) bludging on your part etc etc anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Since I struck out my vote above earlier. It passes every single aspect of WP:GNG and does not fall into any what Wikipedia is not traps, I can find no valid reason to delete. Also WP:NSOFT might be just an essay but is a good guideline in lack of a specialty guideline and has apparently been used before. Finally, for everyone who would want to see it merged but can't find a redirect, how about React (web framework)? I will say nothing more (even though WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy). Footlessmouse (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to meet GNG with TechRepublic article and Springer Book, as well as the Stackoverflow blog. If stackoverflow blog is considered WP:RS/WP:IS, then I wouldn't reject it for the purpose of notability just because it is largely an interview of the subject or subject's author. Being interviewed in WP:RS makes the subject notable. Interviews are considered primary source with respect to factual information, not notability. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly wrong. The GNG explicitly says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The persons own words aren't "significant coverage that's independent of the subject." Plus, the information has to be secondary. I.E. a synthesis of primary material. A person talking about themselves is not secondary information. It's not reliable either, because first person accounts of things just aren't, and it has to be.--Adamant1 (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: I had removed this before, but upon further reflection, I added it back into the page. You might read up on the guidelines, as it can be used as a reliable source for some statements and not others, for instance, I used it as a reference for who the current CEO of Vercel is, which is in no way invalid. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Footlessmouse: Just an FYI, there's a difference between sources that can be used to support basic facts and ones that help establish a topics notability. For instance, Twitter is perfectly fine as a citation for a basic fact (although recently it needs another reliable source added with it). It doesn't work to use Twitter as part of an AfD discussion about notability though. Which is the important thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: my bad, I'm not sure why you even responded to the comment, then. Notability is established aplenty without reference to the interview. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as discussed in sources, Adding Server-Side Rendering to Your React Application (2020), chapter dedicated to the topic specifically at Next.js, the book, Next.js Quick Start Guide: Server-side rendering done right (2018), The Next.js Handbook, as well as Next.js 9.5 Improves Static Site Regeneration Performance, and Net News Ledger, and Next.js adds incremental static pages regeneration, and Next.js 9.3 Released, Improves Static Site Generation, and Next.js builder Vercel spruces up edge network. Thanks! Right cite (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Footlessmouse's improvements. Yes, being the subject of several independent books/book chapters means that the software is notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant new improvements in sourcing have been made during this discussion to establish notability Spudlace (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong| [prattle] || 16:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2003–04 Shrewsbury Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NSEASONS states that "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements" (my emphasis). It doesn't state that a season outside of a top professional league MUST NOT be created. This article is well written with plenty of prose, and would surely meet WP:GNG, and could possibly be a GA contender. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - meets the NSEASONS criteria in the sense that it satisfies "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose", however, a lot of the sourcing is just routine match reports from the BBC Spiderone 15:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what is significant here, where is the coverage? Yes the prose is well-written, but it's 90% match reports. GiantSnowman 16:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What is significant? Maybe the fact they got promoted back into the Football lLeague! :/ And the fact that everything is sourced discards NSeasons really and that's a sub of GNG which technically this article does pass. Govvy (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 09:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, those match reports provide SIGCOV, meaning that this article passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking at references in the article, meets GNG, with significant coverage for both having just been relegated from the 4th tier, and being promoted back to it almost a year later. Nfitz (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Like what Giant said as most of these are match reports which wouldn't be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. If their was independent sources then I would be happy for it to pass but for now I don't think it's satisfies the critera. HawkAussie (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's significant independent national-level coverage User:HawkAussie of their promotion; The Independent, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, BBC. Nfitz (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG with continuous national coverage. The only argument for deletion is that it "fails WP:NSEASONS," but NSEASONS is not an exclusionary policy, meaning an article can still exist if it passes WP:GNG. Also, the fact a team's match reports get written up every week by secondary sources is a clear sign that season was notable, even though we typically discount match reports as insignificant. I actually think demonstrating secondary written match reports is a requirement for these types of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 09:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| [talk] || 16:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Tseytlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A before search yields only [21], which is a reliable source and focused on him but, unfortunately, not enough to justify a stand-alone article. Google News returns nothing about him. He does not appear to pass WP:GNG and does not appear to have reached the same heights of notability as compatriot Ravshan Irmatov. Spiderone 17:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Confirm and agree with the comments made by nom. Does not meet WP:BASIC, and does not meet the (non-existing) guideline that I consider comparable to WP:NFOOTBALL. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 11:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poor standing notability. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 16:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm concerned about User:Spiderone's before search. Looking just in Google, I see more detailed and in-depth news stories about his retirement (ironically noting that he's second only to Irmatov) here with other pieces one, two, and three. Nfitz (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is just the Uzbek-language version of the retirement announcement that I have already referenced above. FC Shurtan Guzar is just a routine announcement that he is refereeing an upcoming fixture for FC Shurtan Guzar on the official club website for that club; not significant coverage or an independent news source. Yandex is focused on him but extremely brief. Sports Uz Interview is focused on him but it's an interview. It shows some good coverage on him as an individual in that last source, though. Ultimately, I'm not convinced that there is enough coverage. Referees tend to get a lack of coverage compared to footballers playing at the same level but it's not our place to right that wrong. Spiderone 08:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" just the Uzbek-language version of the retirement announcement that I have already referenced above" User:Spiderone? Same publisher, but the English one is 3 weeks earlier and is only 2 sentences long, and the Uzbek one is far more detailed, and also includes an extensive interview. Nfitz (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two sports.uz articles constitute WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/WP:IS. Interviews being primary sources is an issue for citing factual information, not notability. Being interviewed by an WP:RS/WP:IS makes the subject notable and constitutes significant coverage, on par with a profile run by the same source. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WHP Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Edit #1 contained a maintenance template from July 2019. Article appears to be spammy in nature and subject non-notable. Most provided sources are press releases. ♟♙ (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it's unencyclopedic and self promotion. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco DeMaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no indication that DeMaria meets the notability guidelines for academics. The one source, Who's Who, is generally not considered a reliable source. Nothing in the article suggests actually meeting notability guidelines. One last thing, the creator of the article used the user name Mdemaria, which may indicate some sort of personal relationship with the subject. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The same creator did virtually only one other edit, creating the article on Michael DeMaria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Devokewater (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per WP:GNG. Marquis Who's Who in the East is not as exclusive as it sounds. If he'd appear in other reliable sources, that would be fine. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omniscientmoose42 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Wimpshake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Just another WP:MILL band. No significant coverage. Restoring the previous redirect to Red Monkey (band) makes no sense as the band is not related in any way except for a single member without their own article. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (regretfully) - The band has a pretty robust AllMusic profile ([22]), but despite a long career I can find almost nothing else except routine gig announcements, promo statements from record companies, and softball introductory interviews. Here is fairly useful feature article ([23]) from a lesser-known publication. Unfortunately they seem to have remained under the radar for their many years, which is cool for a DIY punk band but not for Wikipedia, where we need reliable and significant coverage. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 19:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Change - For my vote above I am pretty sure that I found most of the sources located by the voters below, but considered them to be too brief and piecemeal to qualify as significant coverage. However, in light of their quantity I can concede that I may have been too tough on the "significant" standard. Admins can consider my vote to be Weak Keep. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 02:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are NME and Uncut reviews for one of their later albums. Punknews.org, Line of Best Fit, Drowned in Sound, Manchester Evening News, The Herald, MRR, and Pitchfork ones for others. A musicOMH review of a live show. Google shows at least brief mentions in books about DIY and riot grrrl... Caro7200 (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified in this discussion such as AllMusic, NME, The Herald, Pitchfork, Drowned in Sound and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Good sources found by Piotrus (non-admin closure)   // Timothy :: talk  09:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerlach (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Sources in the article do not meet WP:RS, WP:IS and do not contain WP:SIGCOV addressing the topic directly and in depth. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV.   // Timothy :: talk  18:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added pl interwiki, but the Polish article is about as bad. I agree tha the current article deserves notability tag, but the company is notable (note: I am the author of WP:CORPSPAM so far from corp-inclusionist). It is a household name in Poland (IMHO). Some sources: 1) has a section in this list-article by Polish edition of Business Insider about the oldest Polish brands: [24] 2) very similar article in Polish edition of Forbes: [25] 3) snippet view only so I am not sure if the coverage is in depth, but there are at least several sentences of coverage in Polish magazine Przekrój from 2006: [26], 4) dedicated article about the company in Polish Forbes - I think, not free so I can see only the beginning: [27] 5) A dedicated article in Puls Biznesu, another reliable if minor Polish newspaper: [28] 6) WP:INTERVIEW with the company's president in Polish financial portal pl:Bankier.pl, reliable portal, but interview is less so: [29] 7) an article in a Polish home making magazine pl:Cztery Kąty: [30]. I am sure there is more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable primarily as leader of a minor political party without legislative representation during his leadership and mayor of a small city in the 10-20K population range. Neither of these are "inherent" notability freebies that guarantee an article, but the sourcing is not solid enough to get him over the WP:GNG or WP:NPOL #2 bars that he actually has to clear: of the seven footnotes here, one is the party's own self-published content about itself and two are routine reportage of election results. So there are really only four sources relevant to establishing his notability, of which one is just verifying his initial announcement of his leadership candidacy, one is verifying the date of his resignation, and one is verifying his initial election as mayor. That's not enough, however: to be notable for either of these reasons, he has to show substantial coverage that establishes the significance of his party leadership and his mayoralty, not just the raw dates on which he assumed or resigned the positions. That is, coverage which talks about specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific impacts he had in the job, and on and so forth.
This has also been flagged for possible conflict of interest concerns for nearly a decade, incidentally. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable former SLP leader/Mayor of a small town. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topeka Collegiate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not meet GNG or NCORP / ORGCRIT. BEFORE showed no RS SIGCOV. Coverage includes mentions, routine and run of the mill news stories, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth   // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I haven't seen any evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/WP:IS— Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a sub-secondary school without anywhere near the level of coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete consensus has held that high schools generally are notable but schools of grades under that typical range are not. This one falls in the "typically not-notable" category -- there's room for exceptions of course, but I don't see any reason or claim for such an exception.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Buzzword. The comments at this discussion are split between keeping the article as-is, and merging/redirecting the article to Buzzword. Numerically, there is a small but significant majority of voters in favor of merging/deleting (about 62% for merge/redirect, and 38% for keep). Of course, AfD is not about simply counting votes, but assessing the strength of arguments on each side. Ultimately, the most convincing argument in the discussion is that this list is an arbitrary collection of words and phrases with very little (if any) inclusion criteria. While some of the words have reliable sources to back them up, and those sources verify the existence of that word or concept, very few of those sources confirm that they are indeed considered "buzzwords", or verify their notability as buzzwords. Therefore, the consensus here is to merge any relevant content to Buzzword, perhaps retaining a very limited set of example buzzwords that can be shown clearly and uncontroversially (via reliable sources) that they are (or have been) considered "buzzwords" by society. When this merge is completed, the list article should be redirected to Buzzword. ‑Scottywong| [verbalize] || 16:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of buzzwords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page was first nominated for deletion in 2008; there was no consensus back then. I feel like enough time has passed to nominate it again. The main problem with this page, in my opinion, is just how arbitrary and subjective it is. There are no objective criteria for what a buzzword is; the article is just filled with all kinds of terminology and jargon, some of which in some contexts could be buzzwords, sure, but most of which are also just words with well defined meanings. Maybe that wouldn't be a problem if the article gave for every entry a context in which it is a buzzword; but it doesn't, and I don't think it realistically could. Then, there is the lack of sources; many entries are entirely unsourced, and when sources are present, some just describe terms without calling them buzzwords at all, and out of the ones that do, most are generic internet articles with titles like '13 Buzzwords To Stop Using'. And finally, as this article has not seen significant improvement since 2008, I find it hard to believe that it ever will. Lennart97 (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Buzzword - Most of this is either unsourced/trivial stuff, whilst the rest has some reasonable and reliable coverage to it. The latter could be covered in the main Buzzword article. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the more notable, well-cited examples into Buzzword, likely under "In popular culture". I agree that the article at current is subjective and messy, and trimming back the unsourced and contentious examples while searching for more reliable sources to help back up others (and resolve the singular source and original research issues) can improve quality and warrant the article to stay. However, that may leave the article more barebones than before and still open to mixed additions and removals (as seen in the history already) as time passes. Merging a list of examples into the Buzzwords article could introduce a more solid boundary of notability that in turn will prevent an overflow of examples. --MagPlex ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LISTN the blue links confirm the navigational usefulness and the information is useful. Serving our readers. We have no list of jargon but perhaps we should Lightburst (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (without merging) to Buzzword. Inclusion is arbitrary – different sources are going to have different notions of what exactly constitutes a buzzword (for those very few entries that are even sourced at all). Whether a word even is a buzzword is often context dependent, so this list is currently useless. There's likewise no actual content to merge here. Anyone can expand the main article with a handful of examples with actual in-depth coverage. And then, if such an expansion proves overwhelming to the main article, a list could be spun off. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge what's worth merging to Buzzword. I agree that of this is trivial and unsourced. Maybe it could aid in navigation, but the same could would be true if it's merged. Maybe more so because the trivial and unsourced items won't be included anymore. Plus, as it is a lot of them really have nothing in common with each other. It's questionable that a lot of them are even buzzwords. For instance things like wellness, or Diversity. It's almost like Wikipedia is taking a position that they are buzzwords by listing as such and it's borderline original research. Since a lot of the linked articles don't describe the "buzzword" as being one. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've gotten something good out of this already.

The page in question has a rather dated feel too as, when I check it for current examples, I'm not finding them – no "use case", "surfacing", "block chain", "offer", "social distancing", &c. To bring this page up-to-date, perhaps we should redirect readers to Meta where they can read examples like "Our strategic direction: Service and Equity ⁂ By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us. ..." Deletion would not be sensible because this is such a notable topic that the vacuum would soon be refilled.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, all the issues cited by nom are fixed through normal editing processes. The subject is undoubtedly notable and no one is suggesting that a helpful list of examples shouldn’t exist. All we’re looking for is the right editor(s) to do the work. Glee^anon 13:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, additional sources can include: Buzzwords: A Guide to the Language of Leadership (1974), Management Fads and Buzzwords: Critical-practical Perspectives (2000), and Beyond Buzzwords: Why Some Ideas Fail to Improve Instruction (2017) -- showing the topic is encyclopedic and has staying power in sources over time. Right cite (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to buzzword. I have a really hard time seeing this as a viable stand-alone list. It's not a matter of editing, it's about the possibility of a sensible inclusion criteria/scope. The whole idea of a "buzzword" is too variable/inconsistent/subjective/temporary/context-dependent. We might as well have a list of "jargon" or "slang". It's possible there could be lists with much narrower, clearly-defined scopes (kind of like we have, I think, some lists of localized/domain-specific slang/jargon). It's just too big and too vague. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Places like Consumer Reports [31] give significant coverage to buzzwords. Too many referenced entries to merge to another article. Best to just have it here. Dream Focus 19:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to buzzword. Most of these are highly subjective, poorly sourced, or outdated. A limited selection of those most widely known (synergy probably) should be at the main article but far, far too much of this list is just regular words that someone didn't like in certain contexts and put them in a listicle (but are still widely used and accepted). We need not catalogue such trivia. Reywas92^Talk 03:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I agree with Foxnpichu, this article could be merged, it's a fact that this article does not contain all possible buzzwords, but this alone shouldn't weigh to the point of a complete deletion. Garlicolive (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Good show to Ssilvers for fixing up the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Arden (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A BLP whose only citation is to IMDB, added 14 years ago, the only other added reference being a link to a primary source, possibly added as promotion. A search for other sources is made difficult because of Jane Arden (director), but nevertheless I wasn't able to find anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Arden has had numerous significant roles in the West End and elsewhere, and on tour with the Royal Shakespeare Company and others. Clearly satisfies WP:NACTOR -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources added by Ssilvers show that the relevant criteria are met Spiderone 22:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion running for over a month, the most comprehensive arguments therein (mainly those of the nominator) support deletion. Kholodovsky had the chance to point to more reliable sources, but only came up with a single interview. Geschichte (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nestor Gayowsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:BLP of a diplomat and unsuccessful candidate for political office, not making any strong claim to passing our notability standards for diplomats or politicians. To be fair, at the time this was created we accepted diplomats as "inherently" notable -- but that's long since been deprecated, and the notability test for diplomats now requires properly sourced evidence of their significance, not just technical verification of their existence. But this basically just documents that he exists, not that he had any significant or noteworthy accomplishments in the role -- and losing political candidates aren't notable just for being candidates either, so his candidacy doesn't contribute any extra notability points.
This is also using a really weird, bad referencing format, which just places Name of Newspaper, Date in parentheses directly after the content, without actually providing the title of any specific article in that newspaper. So I ran a search in ProQuest, a database which includes every single newspaper being cited that way here, but I found that the sources fell into one of two camps: either I didn't find any content about Nestor Gayowsky in the specified newspaper on the specified date at all, or I did and it was just a glancing namecheck of Gayowsky's existence in an article whose primary subject was something else. So, again, this was a good faith creation at the time, but our notability standards have changed over the past 15 years and he just doesn't pass the current tests anymore. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete diplomats are not default notable nor are defeated candidates for public office. The sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to significant coverage in reliable sources — Kholodovsky (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What significant coverage in reliable sources? Significant coverage means he is the subject of the source, not just that his name gets mentioned in a source whose subject is something else, and I checked all of the sources named in the article and found nothing that crosses the bar into "significant coverage". Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

INTERVIEW: Nestor Gayowsky, Canada's consul-general for Kiev. — P. 8-9 ukrweekly.com —Kholodovsky (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A interviews in which the person is talking about themselves in the first person aren't notability-making sources. The only kind of source that supports notability is one in which other people are independently analyzing the significance of his work in the third person, not any source in which he's doing the speaking. And the new sources you've added to the article aren't cutting it, either: his notability is also not supported by any content where he's the bylined author of the source, press releases from his own employers, YouTube videos, directory entries on the self-published websites of his own employers, content self-published to people's personal websites, or sources which briefly mention his name a single time in the process of not being about him. You have still shown exactly zero sources that actually make a difference here, because you have shown no sources that represent reliable source coverage about him and his work. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bearcat is right, Q&A does not show notability, nor do any of the other sources presented here. (t · c) buidhe 07:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I support the arguments of Kholodovsky.—ArhKarl (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kholodovsky didn't make any legitimate or policy-compliant arguments. He simply misrepresented unreliable sourcing as being worth more than it really is, and said absolutely nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Bearcat is correct -- the article does not present any evidence that Gayowsky meets Wikipedia's standards for notability (and I haven't found anything else to suggest that he would). I'm still an inclusionist when it comes to borderline circumstances, but this isn't a borderline circumstance. A short reference on this page might be appropriate; a full biographical entry isn't. CJCurrie (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CJCurrie's comments. 2001:569:74D2:A800:80D1:EDB9:E36A:4C11 (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InfoKora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Sources not reliable, doesn't meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. Cursory google search brings up no reliable sources to supplement. Bkissin (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not finding any evidence of secondary coverage for InfoKora or 123Kora Spiderone 17:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thi Be Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a documentary filmmaker and philanthropist, not properly referenced for the purposes of establishing her notability. Of the 18 footnotes here, just one is a real piece of notability-supporting media coverage about her, and even that piece isn't covering her in an "inherently" notable context that would guarantee her an article — it's just covering her in the context of winning a minor local award that isn't prominent enough to confer an instant WP:ANYBIO pass all by itself. All of the 17 other footnotes are to sources that cannot establish notability, such as the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, film directories like IMDb or Cinoche, student media, blogs, a piece where she's the bylined author and not the subject, and several Q&A interviews where she's quoted speaking about a subject (but notability is established by sources in which she is the subject who's being spoken about, not by sources in which she's doing the speaking.) Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much better references than this — as always, wikinotability is not established by the ability to technically verify a fact in primary sources, but by the amount of journalistic coverage she has or hasn't received about the fact in media. Also probable conflict of interest, as the article was created by a WP:SPA who has never contributed to Wikipedia on any other topic but Nguyen and one of her business partners — and who also self-moved their own work on this from draft to mainspace without ever submitting it for a proper AFC review. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In support of not deleting the article, Nguyen has received the Top20 Personality of the year in diversity Award which is a provincial award alongside the Minister Kathleen Weil. She has won 2 awards for her documentary as recognized by IMDB below. Nguyen's productions has the support of TéléFilm Canada with links below.

We've also been informed that articles on her and her achievements will come out in FORBES and JOURNAL LES AFFAIRES in the month of October 2020. How can changes be made to this article so to maintain its existence. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6859748/awards?ref_=tt_awd https://telefilm.ca/en/news-releases/half-19-documentaries-receiving-funding-will-produced-directed-written-women https://telefilm.ca/en/industry-advisories/sixteen-documentaries-supported-by-telefilm-canada-and-the-rogers-group-of-funds Phoenixx32 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, not every award that exists is an automatic free notability pass for a filmmaker. In film, establishing that a filmmaker is notable because of awards requires national-level awards like the Oscars, the BAFTAs or the Canadian Screen Awards, not just minor film festivals like "Canada China" or "Impact Docs" — and "TOP 20 personalities of diversity" is not a major notability-making award, either: even a basic WP:ANYBIO pass requires top-level distinctions like the Order of Canada, not just every single award that exists in the world.

Secondly, notability cannot be referenced to primary sources like IMDb or Telefilm — to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, a person (regardless of her achievements) has to be referenced to media coverage about her in reliable sources. And not interviews where she's talking about herself or other things in the first person, either: sources where other people are independently writing or speaking about the significance of her work in the third person. Simply put, nothing you can say about her counts as a notability claim at all until journalists have reported it as news in real media. If you have to source a statement to a directly affiliated person or organization's own self-published website about themselves, because media coverage reporting the statement as news does not exist, then that statement is automatically not notable enough to guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia — it doesn't count as a notability claim until media consider it important enough to write a news story about it.

Thirdly, we don't keep articles just because people claim that media coverage that doesn't already exist today is going to exist in the future. That's a thing that anybody can simply say about absolutely anything or anybody that exists, and even about things that don't actually exist at all — so if just saying that new media coverage that doesn't already exist today is in the pipeline to come out in the future were all it took to shut down a deletion discussion, then even outright hoaxes wouldn't be deletable anymore. So we don't create or keep articles on the expectation of future media coverage that doesn't already exist yet — if and when such coverage does get published, then we can recreate an article if the new sources genuinely establish the topic's notability, but until that time we can only evaluate sources that have already been published.

So in order to save the article, what you need to do is show that she's already been the subject of a lot more than just one piece of third party media coverage about her accomplishments. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. While I found additional interviews with Nguyen [32] [33] and routine coverage about the opening of her exhibit [34] I could not find any independant coverage of her work to satisfy WP:GNG, and the sources in the article do not supply the notability needed. I searched French Canadian newspapers and websites but did not find additional sources. I also searched Google, JSTOR, ProQuest, Gale and NYT. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Luck Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another underground band. As per Discogs none of their albums have been released on significant indie labels. Geschichte (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians -related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another non-notable underground band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zidane Awad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A non-notable actor and entrepreneur with no significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources have no mention of the subject. GSS ^💬 14:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 14:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 14:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 14:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional content. No significant works or coverage to be notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One WP:RS/WP:IS cited 1, but doesnt' actually even mention the subject. WP:BEFORE yields a bunch of articles in WP:RS 2 3 4 5 but all are press releases/ paid content. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Horrendously written self-promotional startup/entrepreneur spam. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terran Federation (Blake's 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced article with no significant coverage that can be found on a search, as per WP:BEFORE. There are passing mentions in the context of the plot or the overall setting of the program, but nothing "directly and in detail" to pass the WP:GNG, WP:PLOT, or WP:WAF. Jontesta (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:OR WP:ALLPLOT fancruft. This is FANDOM-level material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - with no references, this article easily fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Topic lacks real world context from third party sources needed to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Falco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Very minor character who was unceremoniously dropped from the show after a few episodes. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The only reception is a passing mention while discussing a completely different minor character, who also disappeared with mostly no notice. A search doesn't reveal anything better. Lacks the real world context and reception to meet WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Jontesta (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, character with no lasting significance. The "reception" reference is the definition of a passing mention. Geschichte (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete any relevant information can be covered at the main character list. An article is not needed and does not appear to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Topic lacks substantial coverage. It seems like the wrong article might have been placed, but the reception bit is trivial regardless. TTN (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perigreen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The company does not meet the notability requirements. Could not find in-depth coverage in RS. Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marathon Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, could not find coverage in multiple reliable sources. Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerhub (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable website, no independent coverage whatsoever, fails WP:NWEB Praxidicae (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing here even hints at notability. Fails WP:GNG by a very wide margin. If there was a relevant speedy category, this would be an obvious speedy deletion candidate.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no notability, trash sources, and the user just wouldn't leave it in draft, so it gets assessed with main ns criteria. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above (I'm assuming that moving it back to draft is no longer an option) Spiderone 21:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks all for your time, I'm just fustrated about the article, and am sure one of you might have being at this stage where you believe an article should be in the namespace just based on you where as it's not notable enough to be in the mainspace, I will just like the article to be in draft space for other editors to work on it then send it through afc process I promise not to move it. You can also remove the bad links I promise not to add them again. Thanks all for keeping Wikipedia safe. Stay safe guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynndonald (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not that am protecting this article, but there are many articles here on wiki that doesn't even meet the notability guidelines, no reference whatsoever, some only link to the official website and maybe some directory listing and they were on the mainspace, I can name few if you ask. Lynndonald (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be some that slip under the radar. You can help by either adding sources to them or, if sources can't be found, putting them up for deletion. Unsourced or poorly sourced articles existing in mainspace is never a good reason for creating another poorly sourced article. Spiderone 23:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Barely found anything about the site. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dont Delete I think sitejaber is notable, any non reliable reference should also be removed, so crunchbase is also a reliable website, but as per all other opinion I might change my mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.45.101 (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to TheCoolTV. ‑Scottywong| [squeal] || 16:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of former TheCoolTV affiliates (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)

Not a notable topic, doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to TheCoolTV but I don't think this would be relevant enough to add to the article, as well as it would be merging completely unverified information. Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.   // Timothy :: talk  02:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to TheCoolTV per precedent established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former rebroadcasters of CBAFT-DT. The current lack of sourcing here is an irrelevant technicality, as every single station listed appears to have its own article, where its affiliation is undoubtedly covered. Modernponderer (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A paragraph can summarize the most obvious station groups that carried the network, but at this point it's a station listing that's completely irrelevant as the network is dead and most of the station groups that existed at the time have long been merged into other entities. As a heavy contributor to the article I just no longer see a need for this list. Nate • (chatter) 20:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into TheCoolTV - per Modernponderer. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. Geschichte (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Seas genre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I see no evidence that this has been discussed anywhere as a real genre, beyond just being entertainment set in islands within Oceania. Of course, there are certain tropes that you would expect to find in something set in the South Seas, but that's no different from there being tropes associated with, say, films set in Paris, and there is no "Paris genre" article. One option, short of deletion, is to just rename this article to something like "List of films set in islands in the Pacific Ocean" or "Pacific islands in popular culture", or something like that. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nominator is proposing a title change, not deletion. The South Seas is a common setting for films and fiction and there are several books written about this. For example, see South Sea Maidens: Western Fantasy and Sexual Politics in the South Pacific which discusses the topic in detail – "Donovan's Reef (1963) might be taken as a useful benchmark in the decline of the South Sea genre." It seems to be a genre just like the Western (genre) but debating this is not a matter for AfD. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and stubbify per WP:OR. This is mostly OR at the moment, but the GBooks search result suggests that this is a real thing. I don't think WP:CSK applies because the nomination suggests WP:OR concerns, which is a core policy matter. I do disagree that the article is unsalvageable, however. And I actually don't think a name change would be appropriate, since scholarship suggests that it is indeed a real genre. Rather, the article just needs some real sourcing, which appears available. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While you might not see much "discussion" of this genre in today's film and literature industries, it was a genre at one time. The books in "References" and the link in "External links" should be sufficient to demonstrate this. The article does need a lot of work with respect to specific citations, and that should be noted at the top of the article. The point that the article seems to list any "entertainment set in the islands within Oceania" is a valid point. I cannot say whether or not the films and novels that are listed truly fit the South Seas Genre. That is one reason citations are needed. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: what OvertAnalyzer said above.   // Timothy :: talk  16:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added some information from three published books: Hollywood's South Seas and the Pacific War: Searching for Dorothy Lamour (2012), The South Seas: A Reception History from Daniel Defoe to Dorothy Lamour (2015) and African Americans and the Pacific War, 1941-1945: Race, Nationality, and the Fight for Freedom (2018). There are also many other books available through a Google Books search for "south seas genre". — Toughpigs (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As others have stated, this is a real genre, or used to be one. Dream Focus 19:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources provided by Toughpigs. This was, and maybe still is, a definite genre that got definite discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - once notable, and it was, always notable. This nomination is like saying Hagiography is not notable because nobody reads about ten thousand virgins anymore. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Bearian (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Possibly worst nom since Procol Harum was nominated in 2007. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above keepers. This is a significant media genre. I wouldn't say it's any works set in Oceania. Lord of the Flies isn't here and shouldn't be; its themes are different. From what I remember of it Six Days, Seven Nights could stand to go. Both Bird of Paradise films, the Michener works, Mutiny on the Bounty, and even The Blue Lagoon demonstrate the list part is decent. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There may still need to be more work on developing the article, but this is clearly a real genere that actually existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeepRootLinux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article is basically an advertisement of this tiny company. I could not find any significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. References in the article are either unreliable or just name drops. M4DU7 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under either G11 or A7. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom   // Timothy :: talk  17:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parcroft Community Junior School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Small junior (ages 7 to 11) school, closed in 2009. No indication of significance. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG; trivial mentions in Somerset Live and Yeovil Express. Digging further reveals two more very short articles Yeovil Exp red nose and Yeovil Express day off. A newspaper search in Somerset revealed nothing of value. Does not pass WP:NSCHOOL. Spiderone 11:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is below the level of any presumed notability and the sourcing does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not have RS SIGCOV meeting NSCHOOL or GNG.   // Timothy :: talk  17:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of golf courses in The Villages, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

List of non-notable local golf courses with no substantial coverage of any outside primary sources. Subject is adequately covered in the parent article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. The parent article has a section: The Villages, Florida#Golf courses which provides sufficient details. The courses are all short mainly par-3s and as such not in the slightest noteworthy. Not Wikipedia's role to list every golf course in the world. Nigej (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be a directory of non notable courses. As per Nigej, there is already a section in another article which covers this. Ajf773 (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the ultimate WP:FORK meets WP:MILL with a dash of WP:NOTINHERITED. Not everything Nana does is notable. Not all golf courses are notable, There's plenty of space devoted to this topic in the main article already. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the excellent reasoning of everyone above Spiderone 23:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northampton Town and District Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An amateur short-lived league that does not pass WP:GNG. Evidence of WP:BEFORE:

• [35] - passing mention
• [36] - primary source; doesn't count towards GNG
• [37] - primary source but does confirm results and league tables for 2003-2019
• [38] - British newspaper search in between 2000-2020 which produced zero exact matches Spiderone 10:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A search of the Northampton Chronicle reveals some trivial mentions for a league of a similar name (one mentions it plays on a Thursday whereas this article claims to be a Monday league). The Northampton Mercury has no hits at all really. Spiderone 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference to the "NORTHAMPTON AND DISTRICT THURSDAY LEAGUE" is from an article dated 1907, so clearly not the same competition...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My main aim with those searches was to see if the league actually did go back further than 2003. It doesn't appear that it did or, if it did, it was just not notable. Spiderone 11:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FCHD has data since 1990 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've Googled some of the names of the clubs that have won the league before but it only seems to be coming up with namesakes really. Spiderone 15:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Nigej (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability per WP:NACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Ten cites in Google Scholar, and the only coverage I can find of him online is in the local news blogs e-pao.net, KanglaOnline.com, and manipur.org, mostly articles written by him, and none of which appear to be WP:RS.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kangleipak Historical And Cultural Research Centre. Captain Calm (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kangleipak Historical And Cultural Research Centre at around the same time. noq (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not pass GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete,there are less article about him but his works are indeed use for research purpose and even helped in revival of Meetei Mayek script.["Handwritten Manipuri Meetei-Mayek Classification Using Convolutional Neural Network".] Luwanglinux (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article, and the guy it's about, clearly fails the generally notable guidelines and the ones for authors. There's zero evidence his work as a whole has had any major impact on anything that would qualify him to be notability, or that his work has had enough reviews/articles about them/attention/citations/take your pick either. Maybe he would qualify for notability under the guidelines for academics. Although, I'm not really sure and don't think so, but I'd be willing to change my vote if it turns out he does. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of secondary sources (i.e. sources not actually written by him) Spiderone 15:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kindly review if this is secondary source or not ^[1]

Luwanglinux (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to be a reliable secondary source (book review). Are there any others? Spiderone 17:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Spiderone yes this is also a secondary source ^[1]

@Spiderone this one is from a book writen by other writer thats all I get so far I rest my apeal here ^[2]

Those are passing mentions I'm afraid. No WP:SIGCOV demonstrated. Spiderone 23:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hardly meets WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Gotitbro (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kangleipak Historical And Cultural Research Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of WP:notability. noq (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, and I was just in the middle of bundling it with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen. I can't find significant coverage of the centre online in reliable sources per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Captain Calm (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no indication of significance of this organization. Does not pass NCORP.--Mvqr (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to subject lacking multiple in-depth reliable sources about it and therefore failing to pass NCORP or the GNG. Adamant1 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete this organisation is active and its work is a gift to revival of script of Indian language Manipuri officially known as Meetei Mayek..here is the proof that the work of this organisation is used at educational level [39]. these arcticle even give reference to the work of Kangleipak Historical And Cultural Research CentreLuwanglinux (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - none of the sources provided on the talk page or in the article show WP:GNG. Those that do show good coverage are not independent as they are written by Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen Spiderone 15:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Check if this can be considered as secondary source.^[1] Luwanglinux (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What for? It does not mention the centre so cannot be used to establish notability of the centre. noq (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

noq (talk) yes there are less article and journal about the centre since it is a non govt self funded private research centre.well shall I wait till such journals or articles(can be considred secondary) are published and can be found in the internet.But I am showing you the influence of the works of the centre so far in promoting official Indian language Meetei Mayek and digging Manipur history and culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luwanglinux (talk • contribs) 12:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (or not depending) "the influence of the works of the centre so far in promoting official Indian language" isn't a Wikipedia notability criteria. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not covered in any major sources in any depth and the creator of the page has displayed serious competency and POV issues at multiple articles. Gotitbro (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro (talk If if it does not meet wikipedia criteria its automatic to be delated.I have no problem with that but you attacking me personally regarding creation of an article seems little childish.Luwanglinux (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't liberally put serious accusations such as WP:PERSONALATTACKS on people, I have only pointed out issues with your edits which clearly permeate into this article. Gotitbro (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]