Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 5 October 7 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. I opted to relist to get more opinions, but with one of the delete votes changing their opinion there seems to be a WP:HEY-type swing of opinions following improvement. No prejudice against renomination if there are still other concerns. Primefac (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idin Samimi Mofakham

AfDs for this article:
Idin Samimi Mofakham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural re-nomination of this page, which was originally nominated in January 2020 but speedy deleted (via G12) and thus the discussion was closed early. I will copy the original statements below. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 20:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following is copied from the previous AfD discussion. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 23:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable composer failing short of WP:COMPOSER. A WP:BEFORE does not show evidence of true notability. Celestina007 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep. The article already included quite some references and external links showing the notability of the topic (the internationally renowned arts centre deSingel, magazines like The New Yorker,...). Also internal Wikipedia links show the importance of this person. This person is for example quite central for the mentioned Tehran Contemporary Music Festival. I have the impression that the WP:BEFORE was not carried out sufficiently before nominating the article for deletion, especially with regard to "C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" and "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". To state the notability more clearly, I added some extra references and external links, such as the Discogs profile, an academic article and the press article in the international newspaper Tehran Times. I hope that this is sufficient evidence of notability. Beireke1 (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete — No criterion from WP:COMPOSER is satisfied & generally the subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails to satisfy WP:GNG as well. The keep !vote rationale from the article creator fails to demonstrate how the article’s subject is notable. Celestina007 (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If necessary I can add links to the sources in Farsi. --Archa2 (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC) 21:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (unless reliable Farsi sources can be found) — I understand the passion for promoting the gentleman's accomplishments, but when it comes to coverage in English, I must agree with Celestina above. The gentleman has been introduced at the websites for the events that he attended, the orchestras with which he played, the awards shows in which he was nominated, etc. but this does not add up to enough independent and reliable media coverage. I concede that there may be a problem with Farsi sources, because the article does not provide the native version of his name and therefore the rest of us cannot search for it. If anyone can find reliable and significant sources in that language, I could be persuaded to change my vote. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 20:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote: Keep - due to improved sources in the musician's native language, found as the discussion progressed. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 23:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added significant improvements to the entry, including the vast amount of Farsi reliable sources, magazine entries and official documents I could retrieve about the subject. I have also introduced, by the suggestion of User:Doomsdayer520, the native version of this composer's name, which enables you to follow an extra search. I am hoping that by these improvements, you can consider keeping the material on Wikipedia. --Archa2 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an exceptionally difficult field for subjects to meet our notability requirements. Unlike much of contemporary culture there isn’t a great industry of commentary, critical review and discussion about it. This subject’s work is the topic of a piece of research published in an academic journal (ref 2). There is critical commentary of his work in The Brooklyn Rail (ref 7). He is invited internationally to give masterclasses (ref 15) and from all the programmes listed here it is clear that orchestras in many countries select his work to perform. That’s about as notable as a contemporary composer gets. Mccapra (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the significant coverage in reliable sources identified in the above post which shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Accelerated Christian Education. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 07:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Science for Christian Schools

Physical Science for Christian Schools (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 notability guidelines. No reviews can be found. No recommendations can be found. Cited four times on Google Scholar for Christianity related articles. Not notable. It was noted in a template in March of 2013 that the article fails to meet standards and no work has been done to fix it in the last 7 years, due to the fact that it is not notable and cannot be brought up to standards. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 01:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Keiser

Robert Keiser (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 can't find any coverage of this person. His main claim of notability is quite weak, which is being an executive director of a barely notable school (Southeastern College, formerly known as "Keiser Career College"). Both the article on him and the school were written by a user whose previous username was "KeiserUniversityPR". – Thjarkur (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As an aside, his father, who is also in the for-profit (and pseudo-for-profit) university business and who does not have a separate article, appears in RS more frequently than his son. Caro7200 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Hello Thjarkur. I created this page. I am not a PR agent for Robert Keiser or his employer, Southeastern College. I am a former employee of Keiser University, which is a separate entity from the school Robert Keiser operates. As you can see from my previous edits. My interest is with small, private colleges (both nonprofit and proprietary). I plan to provide updates and information to as many of these types of pages as possible and just happened to start with one that I am familiar with. I Don’t consider that promotion; I have knowledge of a subject and used it to contribute to Wikipedia. I plan next to create a bio pages for Barry University president, Mike Allen, who I have never met, but am also familiar with. I also plan to go through many of the pages at List of colleges and universities in Florida and provide updates to those that do not contain much information.

With that said, I think it is unfair for anyone here to make the claim that my work is promotional. In a quick search, I found cases of collegiate administrators who have pages that are more poorly sourced than this one. And I’d argue that these examples don’t hold up to WP: BASIC or WP:GNG; and yet they are not facing possible deletion.

The sources I included for Robert Keiser are, in my opinion, far more neutral than many of these. I avoided using his bio page in an effort to remain neutral. And in regard to notability, I think it’d be an argument to prove that these administrators meet a higher standard of notability than Robert Keiser who helped get the Fitness Integrated in Teaching (FIT) Kids Act passed initially.

While I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing, that should not be an automatic sign that I am attempting to promote something or somebody. This page was not done to promote, and I’d encourage you to assist me correct any potential issues that exist rather than simply deleting it.

Should the page be deleted, I’d ask for your advice and guidance in re-creating it when and if the time is appropriate — and I’d ask you when is the time appropriate? What justifies notability? Based on the examples I provided, you can see why this is not easily answered for a new editor.

Thjarkur, thank you for your information about WP:AFC. I will certainly use it next time I create an article. Thank you also for the info on WP:COI which I did I not know existed. I will do my very best to follow these guidelines and identify when a potential conflict of interest occurs on my behalf. I am now employed with another university in Florida so such an incident could occur. KCS18 (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you XOR'easter. Robert Keiser is not WP:VSCA. Look at the unbiased sources explaining his role in the FIT Kids Act. On the other hand, Kevin M. Ross appears to fall under the vanity concept. According to WP:PROF#C6, Robert Keiser meets that criteria based on his role. Now, there is some discussion about Southeastern College's position as "major academic institution," but the same can be said about many colleges and universities. And thank you kindly for sharing the information on WP:WAX. The page clearly says "Just notable/Just not notable" isn't a clear argument for deletion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Plumb

AfDs for this article:
Caroline Plumb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient sources to show notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We require significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Could you kindly pick the top THREE sources which meet this requirement. I will happily withdraw this AfD if we can show that coverage exists and that this subject is notable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples: Haymarket Media Group, The Telegraph, Wired, The Gazette... --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, from WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Receiving the Order of the British Empire clearly meets that criteria. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Olanrewaju Ibrahim

Noah Olanrewaju Ibrahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional biography of non notable real estate disruptor. Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pondy Ravi

Pondy Ravi (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)

Page that I created. Only one source exists.[1] TamilMirchi (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @TamilMirchi: I’m a bit mystified by these nominations. You say only one source exists but the article cites four. Do you mean that only one of the four really contributes to notability? If so I think I’d agree with you in respect of the sources in the article. In order to support a deletion nomination however I’d need to be confident that there weren’t other sources out there. I’m not really equipped to do a reliable search myself in Tamil on multiple articles, so it would be useful to me if you could make some statement, confirming that for every article you have nominated here you’ve done a thorough search and there are no better sources we should be considering. Other editors who can’t read Tamil might feel more confident in !voting then. Many thanks. Mccapra (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete' i had to think at-least for 5 minutes to take a decision. this article is not enough and the reference link of the IMDb is also empty. nothing is there in that link. we can verify the a article on actors when IMDB writes something but there is nothing there.Author Sanju (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - enough reliable news sources exist online to save this one [1] [2] [3] [4]. A random bio here too (not worth including) [5]. Neutral Fan (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 05:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| [comment] || 20:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. as per consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 07:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Webb

Bradley Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by article creator. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a competitive match between two teams from leagues listed at WP:FPL; has only played in non-league or in the EFL Trophy against U21 team). Player has not been on the bench for the recent league matches so unlikely to play anytime soon. GiantSnowman 18:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EFL Trophy matches notability: Re WP:NFOOTBALL, There is no such ruling that EFL Trophy opponents, being the U21 professional players of a professional team are not worthy opponents for notability. Notability includes contracted professional players that represent teams in professional leagues eg Championship club Norwich City. EFL Trophy matches are competed by teams at Level 4 or above in the English league system. Many under 21 players will have played first team matches for their club, often regularly. Leicester City U21 were EFL Trophy quarter finalists in the 2019-20 season19:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwimageglow (talk • contribs)

The comment "Player has not been on the bench for the recent league matches so unlikely to play anytime soon" is baseless biased conjecture and irrelevant anyway.19:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwimageglow (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft Not a bad start to the article, the player is signed to a league club and I think moving to draft space would be a more sensible option than a straight up delete. Govvy (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: - there already is a pre-existing (and IMHO better and more substantial) draft, at User:GiantSnowman/Bradley Webb. GiantSnowman 14:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I understand. GiantSnowman flagged my post for deletion because he wanted his own draft published. Dear me. There's literally many hundreds of player pages in wiki where the player has only appeared in an EFL Trophy tie. This debate is a pointless pedantic waste of time which has no positives and only discourages valid contributions to wiki. 18:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwimageglow (talk • contribs)
"There's literally many hundreds of player pages in wiki where the player has only appeared in an EFL Trophy tie." These are players who have played in a match between two clubs from fully professional leagues, not in a match against U21 teams. Other articles about players who have only played against an U21 team in the EFL Trophy have been deleted at AfD. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I might add, apropos our unsigned comment above, that "other stuff exists" is not considered a valid argument. However, I believe there is a case for saying "other stuff *doesn't* exist", that if we can have articles about English footballers of highly questionable notability then we ought to have far better coverage of the world outside the Anglosphere, and we certainly shouldn't have the former unless we also have the latter. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, pointless pedantic waste of time.Pwimageglow (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Doesn't qualify for mainspace yet but could shortly and probably will as he's in the mix on the County teamsheet. Only sigcov at the moment seems to be of the transfer. There's no need to delete this, and I am concerned about the optics of "there's already a better draft here" in terms of the deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chrystalief

Chrystalief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability tagged for 10 years. Fails WP:MUSIC, has released on an indie label which is not close to being one of the more important indie labels. Geschichte (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parirau ataroa

Parirau ataroa (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 genus is a nomen nudum (i.e. it is not formally published) published in a pre-print. As the genus is not formally published (and likely never will be, as it is by a non-palaeontologist with many crank ideas, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#User:Falconfly) it fails WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. It has received no other coverage and therefore fails the general notability guideline. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants to the Draft deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Parirau ataroa @SmokeyJoe: @Lythronaxargestes: @Dunkleosteus77: @Chicdat: @Lightburst: @DESiegel: @Robert McClenon: Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Villa F.C. 7-2 Liverpool F.C.

Aston Villa F.C. 7-2 Liverpool F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Evan0512 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sources in the article clearly support GNG that go beyond routine match reporting / transfer talk. Fenix down (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League 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:GNG and WP:NSEASONS which are the agreed guidelines for season articles for clubs Spiderone 18:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to bundle all the other Melbourne Victory W-League articles in here? Spiderone 20:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And to, answer your question, although every W-League individual club season article fails NSEASONS, some of them do look to pass GNG. I am nominating this one on its own because it clearly fails WP:GNG and doesn't seem to have potential to pass GNG Spiderone 20:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best to bundle all the ones deemed not notable and have a wider discussion. As you say, some are more notable than others. It will save a lot of messing about. Djln Djln (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hack for the clarification. Point seems important to me anyway so not striking it. --SuperJew (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of people and animals from Thomas & Friends. Redirecting as an alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allicia Botti

Allicia Botti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tried redirecting it but there's no evidence that this is a notable fictional character. Praxidicae (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Stork

Jim Stork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsuccessful political candidate fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 16:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This guy dropped out of the race several months before the general election, so even when we had the absurd rule that major party candidates for US congress were notable, he would not have passed. This is also a very POV-pushing article. It implies that in South Florida having ethnic minorities favors the Democrats, when the largest ethnic minority group in South Florida votes majority Republican. It also tacks on langauge about a court decision 10 years after this guy ran for office that had no direct bearing on any district in the 2000s since it was interpreting a 2010 amendment to the state constitution. This is one of the worst cases of coat-racking I have every implied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wilton Manors FL is not a large enough city to guarantee the "inherent" notability of all of its mayors, unelected candidates in congressional elections don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and this article is referenced nowhere near well enough to claim that he passed WP:GNG and was therefore exempt from having to pass WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable not-politician. SportingFlyer T·C 20:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ornato

Anthony Ornato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copy-and-paste move from Draft:Anthony Ornato about a subject who fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. I don't think there's a CSD that applies here, but hopefully there is so we don't have to go through the whole shebang … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  JGHowes  talk 01:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shamima K Choudhury

Shamima K Choudhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed WP:ACADEMIC.

  1. The person's research has no significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  2. The person has not received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  3. The person has not been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association or the.
  4. The person's academic work has not made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
  5. The person has not been held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
  6. The person has not held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
  7. The person has not a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
  8. The person has not been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. ~Moheen (keep talking) 15:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen (keep talking) 15:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen (keep talking) 15:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen (keep talking) 15:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TJMSmith: do we have a reliable source for that? I didn't see anything about fellows on the Bangladesh Physical Society website. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching for a source, and found this likely primary one [6] where she identifies as a fellow. TJMSmith (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: passes WP:GNG on the strength of the coverage in media, is clearly a nationally significant pioneering woman scientist. It isn't clear what a "selection grade professor" is, but it appears to be, or have been, a high rank in Bangladesh universities - see this cv where a former head of department and professor became "selection grade professor", and this which seems to lament the proposed abolition of it where "senior professors are downgraded from selection grade which means they are going to be deprived of salaries equivalent to top bureaucrats". PamD 11:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And after having kept, move to the more standard Shamima K. Choudhury with full stop after initial. PamD 11:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I think we can safely disregard assurances of future sourcing by self-declared paid editors. Sandstein 07:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Noble (musician)

Emma Noble (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Paid article about a musician and DJ who fails WP:NBAND and WP:BASIC. Sources are unreliable, primary, or interviews, and I couldn't find anything else. Seems like it's WP:TOOSOON. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus was that no appropriate sources exist to sustain this article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin F. Exoo

Calvin F. Exoo (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:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:BASIC. Not an endowed chair, low citations on Scholar. I found two reviews of his books, one of which is an edited volume—[7], [8]—but nothing else substantive. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability both as a professor prominent within his field (cultural hegemony), with published works in this field and as a journalist with nationally prominent publications. Torchist (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Torchist, Care to provide evidence that he is prominent in his field? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm not seeing enough reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, and I see little evidence of citation impact for WP:NPROF C1. The article looks autobiographical enough that WP:TNT is not irrelevant, which helps to bring me to the delete side. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did several searches and found nothing. His social media presence is virtually nil. I used to blog at DailyKos under my user name and never heard of him. I found his articles at Salon, but there is nothing about him. 21:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch linguistic influence on naval terms

Dutch linguistic influence on naval terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure OR, from someone who doesn’t understand the concept of cognate words, by the look of it, or views them as rare. Almost completely inaccurate for that reason. Qwirkle (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Corinthians League

Newcastle Corinthians 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)

This was an amateur league playing at a low level so doesn't get an automatic notability pass. It needs to meet WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search reveals nothing more than just the usual database/stats websites but no significant coverage in local or national media. Spiderone 12:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tunebite

Tunebite (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, fails WP:NPRODUCT. Onel5969 TT me 11:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, there's a modest amount of borderline reliable tech sites that provide introductions to how to use Tunebite, but between the weak source quality and the superficial nature of the analysis therein, I don't think it meets WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 16:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Kamala

Operation Kamala (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 are multiple issues with this article. A large part of the introduction is a direct copy/very close paraphrasing of a source, and there is another direct copy of a sentence in the Madhya Pradesh paragraph. Secondly, while the term "Operation Kamala"/"Operation Lotus" is possibly notable, four of the eight references in the article don't even mention it, and two mention it only in passing. There is more than a little original research and personal interpretation in the application of the terms "Operation Kamala" or "Operation Lotus" (which, according to sources, refer specifically to what happened in 2008 in Karnataka) to 2020 events in Madhya Pradesh. And finally, the article is pretty much an opinion piece. This can be cleaned up to some extent, and I will try to do so, but the combination of copyvio/OR/POV issues, and the fact that it isn't actually shown in the article that the term is notable, means that it should at the very least be deleted and rewritten entirely from scratch. bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 122.171.171.13 (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nakoma Golf Resort

Nakoma Golf Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable golf course. Article is totally referenced on itself and reads like an advertisement. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Hills of Hayward Golf Course

Mission Hills of Hayward Golf Course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Injustice Gang

Injustice Gang (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was sadly deprodded by an anon with no rationale, so here we go... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, major notable element in DC comics, plenty covered. IQNQ (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Indef blocked user followed a SPI[reply]

  • Keep due to sources that exist in the real world from mainstream comics to television to video games and journalism that covers their appearances in the media. --Moscowdreams (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock account[reply]
  • Delete Very minor group with only a few appearances; far more minor than the other villain groups up for deletion now. The versions listed in the other media section really aren't the injustice gang, more like versions of the injustice league or other entities. And references are not enough to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a substantial group in the universe, won't be missed even if deleted, lack of sources and updates wouldn't get it anywhere. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 19:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Injustice League

Injustice 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)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was sadly deprodded by an anon with no rationale, so here we go... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, major notable element in DC comics, plenty covered. IQNQ (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Indef blocked user followed a SPI[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of characters in The Railway Series#Gordon (Number 4). Eddie891 Talk Work 16:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon the Big Engine

Gordon the Big Engine (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Spinningspark with the following rationale "major character in series". This is, unfortunately, not a valid reason in light of the linged policies (GNG/NFICTION), and month and a half have passed with no significant improvement to the article (while much of the WP:FANCRUFT related to this series has been pruned). Time to discuss this one here too. Redirect, I guess? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major recurring character in a variety of media and shows. See The Guardian for some interesting political commentary. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Not sure on the reliability of opinion pieces, but the above article hardly seems worthy of inclusion in the article regardless. It say very little about the actual character, and I doubt "Random Journalist compared the character to a British Prime Minister" is anything anyone would ever deem worthy of connecting to this character. TTN (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when your character is so minor the actor who voices it also does 2 other roles, I do not think we have a case for notability. Maybe I am focusing on one film too much, but the sourcing does not come to the level of the multiple secondary sources giving indepth coverage that we need to show notability. Just because a character has lots of apparence in primary sources (the works themselves) does not make them notable. We need secondary coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - by the way, this is not a minor character, it is one of the main characters in one of the most significant children's franchises in both the United Kingdom and the United States. That said, having asked an expert to check sources and having done a BEFORE search myself, surprisingly there is very little in the way of independent, reliable sources that discuss this character in-depth. Therefore when everything that fails WP:V amd WP:IS is removed (the fancruft) you have a little bit of information, all of which could and should be included in the main article. There's no notability outside of the series (i.e. several of tourist excursion rails run a "Thomas" train, but I've never seen a "Gordon" train promoted.) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Railway Series. As 78.26 states, Gordon was one of the main characters. Without wishing to sound like an old git, when I got read these stories as a small child, it was before the TV series had appeared that made Thomas the central character and sidelined everyone else - before that, in the books, the characters got equal treatment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Railway Series: No direct and indepth SIGCOV from RS. Being "famous" does not mean it is notable, in this case we have a fancruft + OR.   // Timothy :: talk  20:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the above, but List of characters in The Railway Series#Gordon (Number 4) is a more specific target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starhaven

AfDs for this article:
Starhaven (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by a vandal then by another editor who noted that it had an AfD before. Which, nonetheless, ended in 'delete', so perhaps this could be speedied per WP:G4 but since it was also claimed this new article is 'better', let's discuss. To me, this looks like pure PLOT summary, FANCRUFT and clearly failing NFICTION/GNG. Does anyone sees anything of encyclopedic value here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources that aren't in-universe. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable fictional location. The current article is plot-only information with no secondary sources. Searching for additional sources turns up a few results, but all of them are brief, and are also in terms of plot summary only - there are a couple little blurbs about it being mentioned on the Supergirl show, and a couple of books that mention it only as the homeworld of Dawnstar, with no further coverage of the location itself. Rorshacma (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Legacy Tower (Purbachal, Dhaka). (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic Tower

Iconic Tower (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 sources or links. Only a 'vision' building so not that notable Robynthehode (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phase One Network

Phase One Network (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 meeting WP:NCORP. Google searches not finding any WP:significant coverage. noq (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I tagged this for notability and lack of references in 2016 and these remain in place. It was deleted a week ago after a Prod by another user but has now been restored on request from a new user who appears to be from the company. Regarding the weblinks that the user supplied in their Restore request on Explicit's Talk page, these are primary sites, Discogs and a Huffpost contributor Q&A with the company founder. These are far from sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find passing mentions of this firm being the rights agency for this or that work, but I am not seeing the coverage about the firm needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per AllyD's rationale. The article is a stub that is sourced almost completely by primary sources only. No third-party coverage from independent RS to indicate notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Renae

Amber Renae (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)

Unsourced. No independent, reliable secondary sources referenced (as either inline refs or external links); none found following WP:BEFORE. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. WP:REFUNDed after WP:PROD deletion. Ryk72 talk 13:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an undersourced article on a fashion model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a single one of the external links (the nearest there is in the article to references) is substantial coverage in an independent reliable source, and most of them are neither substantial coverage nor independent reliable sources. My searches for better sources failed to turn up anything of any use whatever. It is perfectly clear that this person does not come within a thousand miles of Wikipedia's notability standards. (In addition, virtually all of the content of the article is not mentioned at all in any of the externally linked sources, so if the article were kept it would have to be reduced to a stub with almost no information in it.) JBW (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Johnpacklambert: the word Model has been removed as it has nothing to do with this biography


Also currently airing on Apple TV: https://tv.apple.com/us/show/dream-life/umc.cmc.61pxq42j34ok8jblddfdgo7i7

and on Hulu: https://tvgrapevine.com/2020/08/dream-life-now-streaming-and-airing/

https://www.ontvtonight.com/guide/watch/tv-show/SH035637830000/dream-life.html https://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/dream-life/episode-1-season-1/city-of-angels/1461902/

The show also stars A-list celebrities such as Caitlyn Jenner </ref>https://theblast.com/c/serena-dc-reality-show-dream-life-hot-photos-stuns-fyi-hulu-pictures-positive-tv-show</ref> </ref>https://perezhilton.com/dream-life-reality-tv-show-serena-dc-australia/</ref>

Previously she has starred in Project Runway (Global TV Series)

</ref>https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/amber-renae-from-project-runway-australia-arrives-for-the-news-photo/96432535?adppopup=true</ref> </ref>https://www.newswire.com/amberrenae-com-the-new-website/62502</ref> </ref>http://www.ragtrader.com.au/archive/project-take-off</ref> </ref>https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/marriage/former-reality-tv-star-engaged-by-getting-down-on-one-knee-and-proposing-to-herself/news-story/ddb98b61f46c5cd53f1b3bf6e84c9975</ref> </ref>https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/image-gallery/6ea8b05de173a99ed0b7a2ace67b2c6b?sv=9ec1ea3fdf92ab446a788515a5145084</ref>

And has been the host of International Network Fashion TV</ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ishHbi8PK9Y</ref> interviewing A-list Australian Celebrities and Designers including Melissa George and Lara Worthington:


</ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIKvX9tW3SQ</ref> </ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5nHhxQAMD4</ref> </ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD5mlSOuPGQ</ref> </ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Xb3L5MgrE</ref> </ref>https://au.news.yahoo.com/i-blog-pip-christmass-i-br-aurelio-costarella-lights-up-festival-10302178.html</ref> </ref>https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/amber-renae-attends-the-swarovski-show-during-mercedes-benz-news-photo/483495525?adppopup=true</ref>

I will find additional sources that meet the guidelines.

You can view her IMDB profile verifying the above: </ref>https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3576462/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1</ref>

And is mentioned as being Notable by other Wikipedia pages here:

</ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Queensland_people</ref>

</ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fashion_designers</ref>

</ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Runway_Australia_(season_2)</ref> Arisonwiki2 (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTINHERITED, appearing on notable shows, or with notable persons, does not confer notability. None of the links above have reliable, independent, significant coverage of the article subject. They are passing mentions only. @Arisonwiki2: Per WP:THREE, can you please provide the 3 best references which provide reliable, independent, significant coverage? - Ryk72 talk 22:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is an active editor whose account is named "Brett", but the above comment was not added by that account; it was added anonymously by an editor using the IP address 112.79.64.8, which has made no edits not related to this discussion. JBW (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of Ragtrader[10], which is borderline, none of these are reliable sources. With the exception of the non-reliable Russian language site, toplichnosti.com[11], none of these have significant coverage. - Ryk72 talk 22:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has now been edited by someone who knows how to format references, rather than just presenting them as external links, but the references provided are no better than they were when I commented above: not a single one of them is substantial coverage in an independent reliable source, and most of them are neither substantial coverage nor independent reliable sources. As for the long list of links above, even a glance at the list, without following the links, shows that many of them are YouTube, Wikipedia, newswire (a press release site), gettyimages (which sells photographs, and does not give substantial information about anything or anyone), and other types of sites which are of no value at all in establishing notability, and a closer look shows that none of them are in fact suitable. I even found that some of the linked pages don't mention Amber Renae at all. Bombarding the discussion with dozens of links none of which shows notability does not add up to showing notability. Statements such as "The show also stars A-list celebrities such as..." shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole concept of notability: thousands of nonentities have appeared in the same film, play, show, or event as highly notable people, and that does not make them notable. JBW (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| [babble] || 06:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shobhit Sharma (Technology journalist)

Shobhit Sharma (Technology journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the article asserting he is "the global champion", he does not pass WP:GNG. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Cover Corp.

GMA Cover Corp. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current sources consist entirely of insignificant mentions and non-independent, unreliable, or primary sources. I was unable to find any qualifying sources to establish notability with Google, and I suspect that this company fails WP:NCORP. — Goszei (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and WP:SALT. North America1000 12:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Padikkal

AfDs for this article:
Alina Padikkal (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 satisfy acting notability or general notability. See previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alina Padikkal. Does not appear to be significantly more notable than when deleted. Article was moved to draft, and has been created in article space again, so cannot be moved to draft space again. Draft can be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be very careful when making allegations of prejudice. See DONT TAKE PREJUDICE decision.... You may not make comments like this. They are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. In addition, your arguments must be based upon policy. Fiddle Faddle 10:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of people from Mysore. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities from Mysore

Celebrities from Mysore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge into already existing article List of people from Mysore and then delete. Shyamsunder (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shyamsunder (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 12:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niue Hotel

Niue Hotel (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 does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, article makes no claim of notability. BEFORE showed Promotional material, mentions, but no direct and in depth WP:SIGCOV. Article makes no claim of notability based on buildings on site WP:NBUILD does not apply.   // Timothy :: talk  04:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Holiday Inn#Brands. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Inn Sunspree Resorts

Holiday Inn Sunspree Resorts (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 subject does not meet notability for a standalone article. There is no direct or indepth SIGCOV. The material is either unsourced or is not significant enough to be merged into Holiday Inn. Redirects are cheap, but I think it's an unlikely search term.   // Timothy :: talk  04:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Holiday Inn. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Inn Garden Court

Holiday Inn Garden Court (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 subject does not meet notability for a standalone article. There is no direct or indepth SIGCOV. The material is either unsourced or is not significant enough to be merged into Holiday Inn. Redirects are cheap, but I think it's an unlikely search term.   // Timothy :: talk  04:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect This is already covered in the Holiday Inn article to a certain extent, and it could be bulked up to include several sentences. (Holiday Inn article also conflicts with this one so we should figure out what is correct...) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge. It's not notable on its own merits and unique hotels don't need to be listed in such detail on the parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Aitutaki Lagoon Resort & Spa

The Aitutaki Lagoon Resort & Spa (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 does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Promotional material, mentions, but no direct and in depth WP:SIGCOV. Article makes no claim of notability based on buildings on site WP:NBUILD does not apply.   // Timothy :: talk  04:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrakis

Tetrakis (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 believe that everything here except Tetrakis (Paphlagonia) is a PTM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Absolute Hits Collection

The Absolute Hits Collection (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:NALBUM and doesn't really have anywhere that it could logically redirect. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Verging on no consensus, no input since last relist (non-admin closure) Nightfury 07:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ais Kosong

Ais Kosong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely undersourced film. There are no reliable sources (not Youtube). TamilMirchi (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Latest COMPLETE OVERHAUL Please read the latest version, I reformat the article into mainstream form and format styles // From dead references to WITH SOURCES // I added 1 The Star article, 1 iTimes Malaysia article, which are the very notable news websites that brings reliable information. I also add Selliyal Tamil source and Cinema Brunei news. // 2 REVIEW websites // Remove other excessive external links --User:LoveFromBJM (User talk:LoveFromBJM
  • Delete- Non notable film. All refs provided are plain database entries. The ref listed as a film review is not a film review at all! Fails WP:NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the Star piece is a review of the film with some digressions, also the preceding comment is untrue as the references are not database entries, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My above statement has been wrongly interpreted. What I meant by database entries was not Entries in databases but rather database (log-book) type coverage. Even the newspaper articles only cover the very basics like cast and crew names and release date...no in-depth coverage. And the Star review speaks more about the general difficulties in producing Malayasian-Tamil films than about the film itself. Sunshine1191 (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if a stronger consensus for an outcome can be developed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 03:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Pierrepont, Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull

William Pierrepont, Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Royaltycruft. Article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO- no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Article makes no claim to notability.   // Timothy :: talk  03:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  03:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rich aristocratic kid who died of smallpox at age 20 without accomplishing anything other than having two kids of his own. Not notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary or a genealogical database. Just because your parent held a noble title, and you would have if you had not died, does not make you default notable enough for an article. We should stop doing place filler articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He wasn't an Earl in his own right. Earl of Kingston was his father's subsidiary title which he was using as heir apparent. Not notable enough, even for a redirect. Fails WP:BIO. TheRedDomitor (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Park Jefferson

Park Jefferson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. Only independent reference is sputnikmusic.com; the coverage there doesn't appear to be substantial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay what if I get more sources for the article? The Irate Communist (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you get more sources, we will consider them. I couldn't find any. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colortone (band)

AfDs for this article:
Colortone (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)

Fails WP:NBAND. Insufficient sourcing is available and 1 review does not satisfy the "multiple" clause of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." TheSandDoctor Talk 02:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable band. The only reliable source is the Chicago Tribune article. The rest of the Google search results that are about the band are the usual junk sites like Discogs, a blank Allmusic page, Amazon, Facebook and SoundCloud. Maybe there are print sources available since this was a pre-Internet band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:00, 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 redirect to Jerzy Petersburski. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 22 June song

The 22 June song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NSONG / WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 02:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of animal rights groups in Goa

List of animal rights groups in Goa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns. The current version fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY badly. The only bluelinks appear to be India-wide groups such as People for Animals; that article doesn't mention Goa at all. No evidence of coverage of the topic of animal rights in Goa separate from Animal welfare and rights in India. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn per WP:HEY - the article has been entirely rewritten and renamed to Animal welfare and rights in Goa, the directory content has been removed, and sources such as [15] about animal rights issues specifically in Goa have been found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
power~enwiki Elmidae Ajf773 and all, Have reworked the page extensively taking all the concerns raised here. We, on behalf of the Wikipedians of Goa User Group are trying to raise the profile of the Wikipedia in Goa, and of Goa on the Wikipedia. We hope to have your help and support in making this a workable page fredericknoronha (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following changes have been made: (i) Issues focussed on instead of organisations (ii) Shifted from being a list to being a Wikipedia entry (iii) Reliable sources cited, mainly from the media (iv) Significance and relevance of the issue in Goa is explained higher up in the text. Hope this meets the requirements. fredericknoronha (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Working to address the above concerns (i) On notability, am citing sufficient newspaper sources to make clear that these are fairly active, known and prominent organisations in the region. (ii) Deleted all texts which could make it appear to violate the WP:NOTDIRECTORY criteria. (iii) Added bluelinks that focus on Goa (iv) Given background information to show the diversity of Goa animal rights campaigns and how these have their own flavour in a region which is ecologically sensitive too. fredericknoronha (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the additional citations which from newspapers and other established sources. Blue links corrected to reflect Goa topics and links. Text backgrounded better, to make clear what is unique in this context. fredericknoronha (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep following extensive reworking of contents and focus, away from providers/groups and towards treatment of overall topic, and move to Animal welfare and rights in Goa. Nice work! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am working to correct the above, so it is an encylopedia entry rather than appearing to be a phone directory. fredericknoronha (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed and removed unnecessary details, to ensure that it is an encylopaedic entry rather than appearing to be a phone directory. fredericknoronha (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fredericknoronha, I appreciate what you are trying to do here and the work you have put in. But this is just the wrong scope for Wikipedia (as currently understood). The expectation for an article on "Animal rights groups in Goa" would be either:
a) an article that covers the topic as a single unit, using sources that do the same. You can expect those to be difficult to find - the more specific the topic, the lower the likelihood that someone else has published a summary on it (and that is what would be required as the principal source). Cut off the "groups" and go with "Animal rights in Goa", and it might become more feasible; in fact your first section is heading in that direction. But that leaves the
b) list of (X). To avoid us becoming a rambling directory of random stuff, those almost invariably need to consist only of entries that already have an article of their own. See for example List of restaurants in Israel - a fairly trivial topic, but all the entries have been considered notable on their own and have a separate article. There's no chance that this is going to be the case for the majority of the entries in your list of groups and establishments. This bit will have to go, and that kind of takes the topic with it, unless you want to head into direction a)... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are really caught in a Catch 22 situation. The topics may seem as not significant enough (by global standards, that is, but to our communities this is crucial information) to have pages of their own; AND if they don't have their own pages, we can't even build a list. So, how does one get out of this vicious cycle, please? I have made this point elsewhere that it is becoming extremely difficult for the Wikipedia to reflect the realities of smaller parts of the planet, those which are not adequately understood elsewhere, under-mediated societies (as in oral societies which have a less mature tradition of the mainstream media operating in them), and those which don't have a very active media or are not very strongly represented in the online world. Besides, this is what I came across: "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles" ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists fredericknoronha (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made changes to ensure it doesn't appear as a directory. fredericknoronha (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly see the comment above, to correct this concern.
Am working to sort out the issues. Kindly share feedback. fredericknoronha (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly see the changes implemented. fredericknoronha (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Retain, please. This is important information for us. I have been working on this list, and initiated it just yesterday. Please give me a little time and I will get the citations. This is an important collation of information in a region which has a lot of stray dogs, need for cattle care, and also reptiles that occasionally enter homes and need to be taken care of. I agree that the page could be better cited, and am working on that. Seek your help in making this a better page that could be really useful to all readers in Goa and beyond, and also to the Wikipedia in general by including a wide diversity of information. Can work on improving the other issues mentioned too. fredericknoronha (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have taken up the suggestions made above, to improve the page. Added citations. More relevant blue links. Also removed the phone details that make it look like a directory. Seeking your help and support in keeping this list in a format acceptable to Wikipedia. fredericknoronha (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essentially, what this boils down to is that this is a list of entirely non-notable groups; there is no evidence that these groups are covered as a group in reliable secondary sources nor is there any navigational purpose to this list, since all of its entries lack any independent notability Spiderone 09:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Am working to ensure that citations are there so that the reader might not feel that these groups are non-notable. Please see the updated version. fredericknoronha (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The additional citations make it clear that the entries are not lacking in notability. Kindly see. fredericknoronha (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are trying really hard to get more Goa-related content on behalf of the Wikipedians of Goa User Group, and need help and support to generate more content on the Wikipedia from a small region. fredericknoronha (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have got a whole lot of citations and reworked the page completely. Hope this will meet your requirements. fredericknoronha (talk) 10:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fredericknoronha has reworked the page significantly since the AfD nom, with a significant number of WP:RS. As mentioned by him, this is a small attempt by him and other members of WP:GOA in increasing the coverage of Goa on Wikipedia. If the closing admin still finds that the article does not meet the necessary standards, I would request the article to be draftified, so that it can then be improved and possibly go through the AfC process once it is in better shape. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your understanding of our intentions, @SerChevalerie. Willing to work to improve, and seek assistance for that.
Delete per nomination and merge any useful information into Animal welfare and rights in India: I can't see how the article under this title can ever be anything other than a directory, which would fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm willing to change my vote if an involved editor were willing to take on the task of renaming the page Animal welfare and rights in Goa and working on it under that title. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per name change and recent edits which change the article's focus. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may seem, from a distance, that huge countries like India are just one monolith entity, but in my view, the diversity of its many regions have to be taken into account if the Wikipedia is to grow to its optimum potential and serve these regions as a useful information source. I have no issues with changing the name of the page, except then it might be even more difficult to justify; lists are easier to build and map information in smaller regions which have their own peculiar issues. Anyway, as long as the issues are highlighted, and easily accessible online to those who could benefit from it, it makes no different to me as to how this is packaged.fredericknoronha (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see how it is shaping up. Spent another four hours to knock it into shape today. Please help to make this a good and useful page. Thank you! fredericknoronha (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Much work has gone into improving the article since nomination and with the name change and improved content, I believe it is notable and encyclopedic.   // Timothy :: talk  14:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 08:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jani Master

Jani Master (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 article about an choreographer in the Telugu film industry does not seem to meet our notability requirements. There does not seem to have been any significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Most of this article contains an unsourced filmography of films which this person seems to have had only a minor involvement. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:ENT. Salimfadhley (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - So his most noteworthy contribution was that in 1999 he helped make a video for a to promote a viral song in that was released in 1998. Can you show the sources that show that his choreography was "the primary subject of an independent and notable work" as per Criteria #3? The article as it currently stands gives no impression that this is the work he is best known for. From the perspective of somebody who knows little of the Tamil film industry, this seems to be an attempt to puff-up the CV of a creative person who definitely fails all of the other more commonly applied notability criteria. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adding on TamilMirchi, the subject is also a recipient of two Filmfare Awards South and two SIIMA Awards as Best Choreographer.--Ab207 (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Filmfare Awards are the top film awards in India so WP:NBIO is passed and this is certainly an important figure in contemporary Tamil cinema. Also this is a very dodgy nomination as it is the result of an editing disagreement (see article talk page) which is in contravention of WP:SCLOSE " A "speedy keep" outcome is also appropriate when the nomination unquestionably is an attempt to vandalize or to otherwise create disruption. For example: Nominations which are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion (possibly in an attempt to game the system), when dispute resolution would be a more appropriate course." imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the filmography is no longer unreferenced as it has 14 references which were added after the nomination, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Headlands and bays

Headlands and bays (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 a split discussion on the talk page, and there appear to be two separate articles for Headland and Bay now. This article just serves to confuse (and attract vandals, by the look of the recent history!). I have not yet had time to check that all info is in the respective separate articles, but once this is done I think this one should be deleted. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC) p.s. Having just scrolled down a bit in the Headland article, I see that much of it is a list. This probably needs to be split off into a separate list article? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Studios

Potential Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find any independent reliable sources about this film production company. This is too soon. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Behindwoods, Top10Cinema, and Indiglitz are not reliable sources. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/cop-in/article4508374.ece
  2. ^ https://www.ntvtelugu.com/en/post/dhanush-maari-2-wraps-up-hints-sequel
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_October_6&oldid=983462261"