Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 7

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 00:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dpvipracollege.in

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

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

does not seem notable, looks like spam. Refs are to its own site. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 23:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL, although I suspect that its a for-profit college so "commercial orgnisations" may apply. I found a news article about two professors from the college who were charged with molestation: [1] [2] however these articles do not satisfy significant coverage of the school. This editor has also created a similar article, so I have WP:BUNDLE the articles together. Let me know if you think they should be separated out. Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720:, kindly unbundle the college article and take it for a separate AfD. First of all, Indian law does not allow any for-profit educational organization. So technically all play schools, primary school upto colleges and universities are non profit organizations. Secondly, this college seems to have been established in 2012 with thousands of students enrolled in it. [3] It is also properly accredited upto 2022 by the national agency. [4] For me it satisfies notability criteria as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES hence I have not bothered to look for RS sources. The last point to note especially for ones not knowledgeable about state-wise Indian geography and economy is that it is based in Chattisgarh, one of the poorer states of India which is centrally located so the local media organizations may not have proper infrastructure to maintain online news website. Also such places and their local institutes hardly receive any attention from other bigger media centers of India. Roller26 (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was an objection to the WP:BUNDLE (see ^ above) I decided to withdraw the bundle nomination. I'm going to renominate the second article shortly for AfD and I'll notify Roller26 and other contributors to the second article through their talk page. In case context is needed, the AfD that was originally bundled was D.P. Vipra College. Z1720 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Roller26: Hi. I tried to search it online, but I couldnt find anything. Would you provide any source to verify your statement? "Indian law does not allow any for-profit educational organization. So technically all play schools, primary school upto colleges and universities are non profit organizations." Thanks in advance, —usernamekiran (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

usernamekiran, this fact is widely known with anyone having basic knowledge about Indian educational system. It's also not hard to circumvent this issue with basic accounting gimmicks and hence a lot of profiting educational organization exits in India under the guise of non-profit companies. You can read the actual Government acts [5] and landmark Supreme Court judgement banning profiteering but this research paper sums it best [6] (just search the word "profiteering). Even the WP page lead section mentions this fact but I suppose the citation link has rotted Education in India. Roller26 (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Whatever happens to the other article, this one should be deleted as effectively a duplicate; there's no point in even redirecting to the other article, as the name of this article is the organisation's website, which AFAIK isn't an appropriate article name for (what I presume to be) an offline operation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete what is this? where is the content. this is not what is expected. Author Sanju (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChunnuBhai (talk • contribs) 07:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete only for the website and not for the college itself. The website article seems to be a result of an inexperienced user who is not well versed with WP guidelines on what does and does not constitute an article. Roller26 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school doesn't pass Spiderone 10:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: The user has created two templates and two articles for the same college, which appear as test pages. Speedy per WP:G2.--Ab207 (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - an odd combo of WP:SPAM and WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 11:16, 14 September 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. There seems to be consensus that coverage does exist for this topic. However, even among those who suggest it should be kept, there also seems to be consensus that it is not the kind of sourcing called for by WP:NCORP. Because there were no alternative claims of notability made beyond this standard, when weighing all participation and considering all comments made (not just the bolded !vote) there is a delete consensus here. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HQ Theatres

HQ Theatres (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)

Appears to patently failed WP:NCORP and any Wikipedia notability criteria. I can't find any general news coverage about the company online, despite it being active in the internat age. Also written very much promotionally. Time for article to go. Sionk (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see quite a bit of national coverage, like this from The Stage. Check the other articles found here. Also, the article needs referencing, but I don't think it's overly promotional; the statements made are purely factual, if they can be verified. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there was anything better than the occasional re-hashed press release in a specialist industry publication, I'd of course agree with you. There aren't any articles that are substantially about HQ, in general non-theatrical news sources, which is why the subject fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 668 Google News hits. Many of them are reviews of shows, or concern a news tidbit about one of the group's theatres at a time. One would have to spend a lot of time assembling all of the information into a full story about the theatre group. But the company operates 13 major provincial theatres in Britain and was, even before leasing its 13th theatre, the 2nd largest operator of provincial theatres in Britain. It is notable on that basis alone, and that statement has been published in more than one news source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't accept stitching together snippets from multiple sources as meeting the criteria for notability. If the company was notable, somebody would have written about it and a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability would exist without resorting to assembling from multiple sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. The coverage I see seems WP:ROUTINE/business-as-usual. I don't see what makes this company pass WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: In my view, detailed stories/interviews in a wide range of UK papers including The Basildon Echo, The Belfast News, The Crewe Chronicle,The Hastings & St Leonards Observer, The Leicester Mercury, Scarborough News, The Southport Visiter (how nice to see they still keep their bizarre traditional spelling), The Surrey Advertiser and TheSwindon Advertiser clearly establish this theatre group as notable. (All and many more can be seen via Newbank (subscription required)). I am sure we ought to keep the article. Tim riley talk 07:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rehashed company announcements and interviews with people connected to the company don't establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article or mentioned meet the criteria since most are based on company announcements and/or interviews with company executives and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:04, 11 September 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. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Forward

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

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

Non-notable session musician, the article is refbombed, with many citations that don't even mention the subject at all and nary an example of significant coverage in a secondary reliable source (although citation #10, to an offline magazine, may be one example). I wasn't able to find anything better searching online and on Rock's Backpages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rosguill, Steve Forward is not a session musician, but a recording engineer and record producer living in France since 30 years. He was nominated for the "victoires de la musique" (french equivalent to the Grammy´s) in 1998 and 2002. I saw another Steve Forward on the internet, a guitarist, living in the UK; maybe there is a confusion. On the french version of google, I can find further information about him. i.e. there is a new interview for a book called "Studios de legende: que sont devenus nos abbey road francais ?", book published by Malpaso-Radio Caroline Media. Zebulon28 (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Zebulon28[reply]

If it's a 1-to-1 comparison to the Grammy's, then I'd say that being nominated doesn't count for much. Can you find any coverage of him in an independent source (not an interview) that is more than a sentence or two long? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have copies of articles (press articles from 1990 which are more than 2 sentences and cover his work during this period) but they can’t be found on the internet. There was no internet at that time. How can I send them to you ? Zebulon28 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Zebulon28[reply]

Zebulon28, either transcribe relevant portions here, or you can reply to the email I just sent you through the "email this user" service and attach documents there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your rapid reply. I send you an email with the articles from my personal email. Zebulon28 (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Zebulon28[reply]

Ok, looking through those two sources, the Sound Check article is another pure Q&A that can't be considered independent. The Home Studio piece also has a Q&A portion, but it opens with some more independent coverage up front. I can't find any info about the publication, but given that it's a print magazine, I'm leaning toward giving it the benefit of the doubt. Overall I think we're still a bit short of GNG, but in a better position than before I had seen that coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. You will find hereafter links to french internet pages where Steve Forward is also referenced. I mistakenly thought that Q&A interviews were more relevant. As soon that I have a little more free time, I will try to find you some more references. https://www.sounddesigners.org/fr/item/112-steve-forward-ingenieur-du-son-et-realisateur.html https://en-contact.com/la-mort-dorion-cest-un-grand-disque-cbe-cest-quoi/ (bottom of the page) https://podcloud.fr/podcast/autreradioautreculture/episode/steve-forward Zebulon28 (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Zebulon28[reply]

Those sources don't look reliable. Sound Designers appears to be a crowdsourced website, En Contact seems to be a PR firm, and the podcast seems like a self-published source. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I’ve looked at this article several times in recent weeks. I guess it’s often hard for a producer to show notability, but it seems that while his work is verifiable, it’s not notable by our standards. Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we have deleted many articles about producers who are either run of the mill or don't get much coverage. Bearian (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a complete lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Just a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL producer. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Run of the mill producer that doesn't pass WP:GNG due to lacking multiple in-depth reliable sources about them. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 21 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Beaver

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

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

Fails WP:NSPORT - hasn't played in a game or been on the active roster of a major professional league. The only thing notable about Beaver is being the recipient of the Gagliardi trophy, however, I don't believe this meets the criteria. The article is undersourced, relying on a few articles from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online - there has been no coverage of Beaver since 2008. OliverEastwood talk 23:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. OliverEastwood talk 23:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. OliverEastwood talk 23:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The articles cited in the article (including the External links section) represent significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, such that the subject passes WP:GNG. Moreover, the Gagliardi Trophy is a big deal; it's awarded annually to the best player in Division III football. Division III players almost never pass GNG, but the Gagliardi winner (best out of thousands who play) is likely an exception. Cbl62 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl62 and my recent clean-up/copyedit/add refs edit. There are plenty of sources to support WP:GNG. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC per the sourcing and improvements made to the article. In addition, winning the Gagliardi Trophy (as national Player of the Year) could arguably be considered to meet WP:NCOLLATH #1, as well. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - From going through the sources in the article, enough are here for a GNG pass. I'm not quite up to saying that the Gagliardi Trophy is an automatic NCOLLATH pass, but it's a big deal, and between the trophy and the significant coverage, Beaver is clearly notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG, plus the Gagliardi trophy is a major honor. Not may D3 players even get a workout with a pro team like the Packers. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:IMPACT. We normally keep articles on winners of national awards such as the Gagliardi Trophy, and I see no reason to make an exception here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfricaHacks

AfricaHacks (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)

Organization only has one mention in independent sources, and it's a passing mention [7]. Lacks the coverage to demonstrate WP:NCORP. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most of the other hackathon articles are badly referenced, as a whole. It is not the best of arguments certainly, but it is at least as notable as Campus Party, or Game jam and as an outgrowth of Hackathon community, growing across the world, from its roots. scope_creep^Talk 14:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't buy the argument that every hackathon is so notable that absence of secondary sourcing doesn't matter in deciding whether to keep them. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all of the sources are affiliated with the company, or merely name-drop the company in passing, or do not even mention the company at all. Nothing better found through WP:BEFORE. Spicy (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- as per Spicy. 1292simon (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions don't come close to addressing the sourcing concerns. Sandstein 18:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walther-Peer Fellgiebel

Walther-Peer Fellgiebel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability standard under WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER. Also appears to contain a significant amount of WP:OR. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment maybe something to consider, see the German Wikipedia article on Fellgiebel, his biography is listed in Habel, Walter (1990) Wer ist wer? The German version of Who's Who (UK). 29th Edition. Schmidt-Römhild, Lübeck, ISBN 3-7950-2010-7. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keepRedirect to Zündwaren monopoly (see my later comment) While he clearly doesn't meet criteria #1–7 of WP:SOLDIER, I think we need to consider that his book was, for quite a period of time, considered a reference on Knight's Cross recipients, and he might meet criteria #8 on that basis. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do remember that WP:SOLDIER is only an essay on notability and does not get around the requirements in WP:BIO for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am entirely familiar with the status of it as a SNG, but it has been proven over and over again to be a good indication of notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fellgiebel was the last member of the board of directors of the Zündwaren monopoly before it ended in 1983, I added this info with references. Note, this info had been removed in a previous edit. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've requested a couple of sources via WP:RSX, one is the Wer ist wer? entry, and the other is a economic Who's Who? for Germany that looks like it talks about former Wehrmacht officers that became captains of industry post-war. I suggest this isn't closed until the busy elves at RSX have had a chance to see if they can access them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with Wer ist wer?, but I doubt it's any help in establishing notability. If it is anything like Who's Who (UK), it will include any local councilor, lawyer, association president, and businessman active for the post-war period. It may well also allow people to buy inclusion. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where’s your evidence for that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have none, especially since I do not speak German. But one reference in a professional directory will never equal "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" for the purposes of WP:BIO. Even if it is otherwise reliable as a source, an entry of a couple of lines is not "significant coverage" and it is also probably WP:PRIMARY anyway. Plus the "multiple sources" bit is still a problem! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a lot of assumptions without seeing what the sources say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is that relevant? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment am not having much joy at RSX, if nothing turns up in a week or so, I think this should be closed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep (as creator of the article) the article is currently referenced with six independant sources, six other language Wikipedias have an article on Fellgiebel, authority control reveals six entries (BNF: cb14547441s (data) GND: 1033633771 ISNI: 0000 0000 2779 3929 LCCN: n87940223 VIAF: 77001355 WorldCat Identities: lccn-n87940223), Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think "currently referenced with six independant sources" is rather disingenous. For example, this article merely references a press release made by WPF on behalf of his match business while this article is clearly about Erich Fellgiebel (see WP:NOTINHERITED) and makes as much reference to WPF as it does to half-a-dozen of siblings and cousins. This article literally mentions his name (and no more!) as one of Erich's children. I cannot see how this can possibly constitute "significant coverage" in published sources.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. If only for the controversy surrounding the books he has produced on Nazi era decorations. Dapi89 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't meet GNG, BASIC or NSOLDIER. This leaves NAUTHOR #1, #3.

• I don't see that he meets #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." His field would be military history, and I don't believe he is an important person in this field or is widely cited by other military historians. He himself noted how his work was in ways lacking. He might be in a very niche community, but thats the extent of it. He doesn't meet this point.
• #3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work ... such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work". Again this is a niche community, not something that is well known or significant beyond. In addition, there work is not the primary subject of an independent and notable work. He doesn't meet this point

If there was an article about the book, it would have a redirect/merge target, but there isn't and I don't know if the book would have RS that would make it meet WP:NBOOK. Again he himself noted how his work was in ways lacking.   // Timothy :: talk  21:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)   // Timothy :: talk  21:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think any basis of notability isn't going to be based on NAUTHOR, but GNG on the basis of being in charge of the Zündwaren monopoly, as there is no SNG for industrialists. Given RX hasn't been able to produce the two sources I was after, I think this should be redirected to Zündwaren monopoly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Industrialist"? Do we even know how many members of the board of directors there were at any one point? Could have been literally dozens. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say he was the head of the board (unter der Leitung von Fellgiebel) Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nom. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Living through extraordinary times or working for a business with a quirky setup do not make anyone notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 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 18:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Atkinson (poker player)

Bruce Atkinson (poker player) (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)

There is no actual strong claim that would lead to suggesting this person is notable. The sourcing is not enough to pass GNG and searching for more sourcing does not come up with anything that would lead to passing GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. He is called a legend of British poker in [8], hut it is a passing mention. There is a short bio blurb at [9] but is the site reliable? If he was really a legend, there should be better sources, I am afraid he fails GNG. But I am surprised the sport fans aren't shouting keep here due to some statistic catalogues? Wouldn't he pass some offshoot of SPORTBIO which states that if you touch a poker card you are notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At some point sarcasm doesn't really work well. I think you've walked well past it here. Hobit (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I randomly came across this article when it was prodded and then I WP:REFBOMBed it to get some verifiability into it, when I saw it was AfD. Note that searching for "Elvis Senior" occasionally finds additional sources beyond just searching for "Bruce Atkinson". This individual sounds interesting, but the current sources probably don't add up to WP:GNG and I'm unaware of a poker-related WP:SNG that would argue otherwise. It would be helpful to have comments from editors in that area, though. Since the European Poker Hall of Fame does not have an article, the only "merge" target I can think of would be London Lowball; there would be little content to merge, essentially becoming a redirect with a mention on the page about him co-inventing the game. Ideally, more sources could be found to validate this claim. —Ost (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the informal Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker#Biography article notability criteria, which is the de facto standard regardless. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete AfD is not CLEANUP but let me tell you if we keep this article on a relatively undistinguished poker player this article does need cleanup. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Ingraham

Caroline Ingraham (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)

Entirely self-sourced promotional biography on a veterinary quack. WP:BEFORE finds a single page of Google hits (68 total), none of which passes the trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found this:[10] but the article has no effective references. scope_creep^Talk 11:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have found no significant coverage in IRS. Less Unless (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sourcing is 7 works by the subject and the subject's "official" website. Wikipedia is supposed to be built on 3rd party sources which this article clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In newspaper archives, I have only found one article that gives coverage of her,[11][12] and one passing mention,[13] but that was all I could find. Even if she was notable, the article would have to be essentially scrapped and re-written, since it doesn't contain any independent sources. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:24, 11 September 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 23:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oat Lane

Oat Lane (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)

A minor short street (roughly 40 metres) in the City of London. The only notable buildings on it are a livery hall, and formerly a church. Looking for sources on the street itself I only found some passing mentions of its existence and location. the wub "?!" 22:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. the wub "?!" 22:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO. Passing mentions in relation to other subjects, maps and surveys do not indicate notability   // Timothy :: talk  14:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Doesn't inherit notability from the one address that is unquestionably on it. Mangoe (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this does not even run a tenth of a kilometer. Not every street within the City of London itself (meaning the subject of Greater London) is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 9 September 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 17:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superbase (company)

Superbase (company) (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)

NN firm which does not meet WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Article contains sources that are primary, unreliable and not independent of the subject. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umakan Bhalerao - any suggestions you can offer on making this more suitable per your ojbections? I see you have several pages on schools, which are not quite "encyclopedia worthy" but they are listed. Hoping to find a way to keep this page alive at least for more than the 7 days in order to flesh out additional citation support. Any feedback is appreciated. K67 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create

• Keep. The degree of notability is yet to be determined, but it would be reasonable to allow the community sufficient time to improve the article. The closer nominated for deletion in a drive-by within hours of the article being published. Article clearly doesn't appear to be an attempt to "appear more favorably." WP:COMPANIES--EngbotUK (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No consensus on delete. 173.54.190.182 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources provided are either non-independent or PR, neither of which help with WP:GNG. My own search brought up more PR sources but nothing that would demonstrate meeting WP:NCORP. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A new user's first article, describing a design company and the work that it does. The affiliations of the company and its founder do not count towards WP:NCORP, nor does its appearance in a list of design agencies in their city. The lists produced by the DesignRush agency are wider in scope, but there is a lack of evidence that these have independent inclusion criteria or that these listings are inherently notable. Searches find more agency listings but nothing to demonstrate achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like an obvious advertisement, and the linked sources are also advertisement (just like that, currently ref #2). Notability is doubtful. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination Withdrawn, newly found citations support notability. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Terrible Two

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

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability for 4 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was legit not expecting to find anything, as the first few pages of searching produced little to establish notability. I kept digging for some reason (I was bored) and eventually managed to unearth enough to establish notability. I can definitely see why these sources weren't found in an initial search, since they were pretty buried under a mountain of unusable sources, junk hits, and false positives. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've also given the article a bit of an overhaul as well to deal with other issues like the COI editing and the plot. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 8 September 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 17:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Little App Factory

The Little App Factory (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)

Looks like a non-notable company, tagged for notability since 2009. Of the three sources in the article, the first looks unreliable, the second one doesn't mention the company, and while the third one is dead, I hunted it down on the Internet Archive, and it doesn't mention the company at all, either. This looks a little bloggy. Also a blog. Most of the sources I'm finding look like SEO crap or unreliable "but this app now" sites, although tech stuff is a little out of my realm of expertise, so maybe I'm wrong. That's why I'm taking this to AFD, not PROD. This company has two products with articles, and both look a little dubious to me. Someone with tech expertise probably ought to take a look at iRip and RipIt, both look a little non-notable to me. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 2 references over 10 years old, thrid is broken. Reads as too self promotional. If this is deleted, perhaps the child pages iRip and RipIt should also be nomianted? Teraplane (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage and most other news I could find are about 10 years old. The software this company makes could be outdated by now. Copyright of website shows 2015.Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:06, 13 September 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 21:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Edwards

Kip Edwards (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)

Never played in an NFL game and doesn't seem to have played a CFL game [14]; I'm seeing no indications of XFL or arena football experience, so he fails WP:NGRIDIRON. His college career doesn't seem to be anything that would pass WP:NCOLLATH. This source, from his employer (non-independent), lists his coaching positions, none of which are significant enough to indicate a pass there, as it's all quality control coach type stuff. 24 7 sports barely has any coverage on him. Once I filter out sources from teams he played for or coached for and unreliable blogs, I'm only finding a handful of brief transaction notices. He just don't seem notable, UDFA offensive linemen who never make it into professional games almost never are. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete hard to search on this one for me, so I have to go off the article as written. The article content does not really have a claim of notability that we would keep if it were sourced, and the lack of sources in addition point toward deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Some significant coverage found. E.g. this from 2009, this from 2008. Falls a little short of GNG but if a bit more significant coverage turns up, it might tip the balance. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First one's good coverage, second one appears to be mainly an interview. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article and added better sourcing as well. Still on the fence. Cbl62 (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I took a couple days to mull this one over. I spent a good deal of time searching for sources and rewriting parts of the article. Sometimes, that effort pushes one to want to "rescue" or "keep" the article. But in this case, the depth of coverage is lacking, and I can't in goof faith conclude that GNG is satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just doesn't seem to have the coverage for WP:GNG or the WP:IMPACT or any other measure. I would not doubt that this individual may in the future achieve notability. If someone wants to userfy, I'm find with that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:06, 14 September 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 21:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Mall at Oyster Bay

The Mall at Oyster Bay (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)

Never-built mall in New York. Sources mention potential stores but nothing ever came of the property. Absolutely nothing has changed since 2014 so this seems to be dead. If there is a need, any verifiable content can be merged into Syosset, New York. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No mentions after 2014- the mall wasn't built. There are plenty of promotional sources about "the future" mall, however nothing else that would show the notability. Less Unless (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL - like many malls, this was never built, and at this time, very unlikely won't be built. Bearian (talk) 11:22, 14 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Víllafranca

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

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

Non-notable boxer that fails GNG and NBOX. – ².O.^Boxing 20:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non notable career. --HuntGroup (talk) 11:31, 8 September 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 Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1983). Tone 20:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Malysheva

Ekaterina Malysheva (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)

Deposed monarchy cruft. PatGallacher (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete she was born 120 years after her husbands ancestors were removed from power. This is an extreme in deposed monarchy cruft. Even on the eve of World War I her husband's family were out of power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bizarre rationale. Royals from reigning houses are not automatically notable, non reigning ones are not automatically not notable we are interested in sources not the passage of time. On which you are wrong as her husbands family were deposed in 1918.... (Duchy of Brunswick) - dwc lr (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong! Most German nobility was abolished in 1918, but the Kingdom of Hanover was overthrown at an earlier stage in 1866. PatGallacher (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read Duchy of Brunswick as I linked above. Her husbands great grandfather Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick was reigning from 1913 until deposed in 1918. Hence they are non reigning “only” since 1918. Right? - dwc lr (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • To contribute to this conversation, members of the House of Hanover were recognized as Princes(ses) of the United Kingdom until 1917 and the former sovereign held British peerages (Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale and Earl of Armagh) until 1919. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google News search shows sufficient coverage to meet GNG. - dwc lr (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Significant coverage in google searches ([15] and ([16]). She is a fashion designer as well, not merely notable for her marriage. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure. Checked the Russian media outlets, found nothing that wasn't related to her marriage. She's not notable as a designer for sure. Timofei Vatolin (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage of her as a fashion designer: [17], [18], [19] -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk)
    • The Vogue and the Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung publications could come handy, but there's no WP:CREATIVE here. Timofei Vatolin (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my opinion to Redirect per WP:ONEEVENT. Timofei Vatolin (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to husband's article, virtually no coverage other than in the context of her spouse. —Kusma (t·c) 19:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Kusma.Smeat75 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google News results suggest sufficient notability, such as [20], [21]. VocalIndia (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Using her Russian name Екатерина Малышева gives more sources, and Russian newspapers and magazine published her profile, and her career as well, see Person of the week: Ekaterina Malysheva, Designer to Watch by The Fashion Spot, [22], [23], [24], [25]. I think there is sufficient evidence that she meets WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, with these sources she meets GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1983) per my usual standards and that almost all of the coverage is related to her husband. Bearian (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should consider for her fashion career. VocalIndia (talk) 12:55, 14 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos Virgen

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

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

Non-notable boxer that fails GNG and NBOX. – ².O.^Boxing 20:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Gupta (journalist)

Neeraj Gupta (journalist) (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)

Appears to be a promotional pieces about a non-notable journalist. The sources present in the article as well as a before search only yields results with barebones passing mention of the subject that fail to meet the requirements of either WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant, reliable coverage to be found. MaysinFourty (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems a notable journalist and a cartoonist from his previous work. Mr Votu is a famous mascot in India designed by the subject. His book Representatives at Work could also be a notability factor.Priyanjali singh (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV. No indication whether the subject meets WP:JOURNALIST either.--Ab207 (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions rely only on WP:RPRGM, which is not a policy or guideline and therefore not reflective of established projectwide consensus. Accordingly, the "keep" opinions must be given less weight than the "delete" opinions, which rely on WP:GNG, a widely accepted guideline. Sandstein 10:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pritzker Military Presents

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. This promotional article was written by at least three people who work for or are associated with the subject. The article's 127 citations consist solely of IMDb (unacceptable as a user-generated website) and its own website pritzkermilitary.org (which is unacceptable as a primary and a self-published source). A WP:BEFORE search is hindered by the enormous volume of advertising and cross-advertising for this subject, and I was unable to find a single article discussing the show itself or anything that would contribute towards establishing its notability. Per What Wikipedia is not: it is not for advertising, marketing, a means of self-promotion, a catalog or directory, or a web hosting service — all of which this 'article' attempts to use Wikipedia for. There is a mention of this show in Pritzker Military Museum & Library, but I fail to see why the entire series of episodes needs to be hosted on Wikipedia instead of its own website. Even the main article topic (Pritzker Military Museum & Library) doesn't have much coverage. I notice there is even a wikiproject Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker to coordinate the Pritzker promotions. Not sure that's acceptable in Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets WP:RPRGM: "an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." as indicated by the lede: "It airs on PBS channels WYCC, WTTW Channel 11, and WTTW-Prime Channel 11-2 weekly." There's a clear lack of WP:BEFORE here, as the first page of a Google search brings up pages supporting those claims. The mischaracterisation of Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker is outrageous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That quote starts with the word "Generally" which you have omitted from your rendition, Pigsonthewing, meaning that isn't an open and shut case. The policy also includes "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone", to which I point out (again) the glaring omission from the article of ANY citation except for those from its own website and IMDb content (mindful that IMDb content can be user-generated). In other words, your argument on the face does NOT solve the notability issue. Nor does it address the WP:PROMOTIONAL nature of the article, especially since it is supported by the museum's own WikiProject. What other organization in the world has its own WikiProject?!?!?! Normal Op (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "What other organization in the world has its own WikiProject?!?!?!". Dozens, possibly hundreds. There is nothing promotional about the article; it contains bare factual statements of the type common - and welcome - in Wikipedia. Your nomination rationale, as well as lacking WP:BEFORE, is apparently based on fundamental misunderstandings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh, Wikipedia:GLAM, that's a new one on me. Learn something new every day. Normal Op (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question: Is there any desire to reconsider this AFD based on learning more about Wikipedia:GLAM? KConWiki (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: I struck my objection to GLAM project in the nomination text. There remains the problem that there are ZERO secondary source citations in the article showing this topic is notable. Fix that, show me that the topic/article is notable by your actions, not simply your words, and I will consider your request. Normal Op (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment: Thank you for your response and thank you for your reconsideration regarding the GLAM question. I have found several references to this television program that might be of help, including one from the U.S. Strategic Command, one from the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and one from the American Battlefields Trust. The most interesting one I found (though this would raise questions of citogenesis were we to try to use it in the article) was a chapter in the book Leveraging Wikipedia: Connecting Communities of Knowledge that was specifically about the Pritzker Museum & Library's experiences with having a Wikipedia GLAM project. (This book has been on my to-read list for a while, but I have not yet gotten to it.) KConWiki (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • If those are relevant and appropriate, then you should edit the article. Normal Op (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Deletion proposals do not stand or fall on whether someone edits the article (something you could do, and should have done before nominating this article), but whether sources exist. You could do the right thing and withdraw this one, which will never succeed, now, to save other people their time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pritzker Military Museum & Library - the references presented by KConWiki are all trivial mentions in press releases about subjects of the show, and are more substantially about the museum. All of the PBS stations mentioned are in Chicago, meaning that I wouldn't consider it to be on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope). I don't see the substantial coverage to justify a stand-alone article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why can stations located in a city not be regional? Where would you expect regional stations to be based? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their quote is from Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Programming. Normal Op (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Airing on three stations owned by the same group in the same city is not a regional network. So WP:RPRGM is not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As per the Lead, it meets WP:RPRGM. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Rescue Sofia

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

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

Non-notable organization. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Normal Op (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has significant coverage in english language. From the article, largest and only non-govermental shelter in the country as unique selling points Arved (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What article? I don't find that information in the one non-self-published citation in the wiki article. Per WP:ORGCRITE, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." and "Note that an individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards notability. i.e. each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must be multiple such sources that qualify." None of the citations in the wiki article meet these criteria. And nothing I found with an online search meets those criteria, either. Normal Op (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Arved, please identify the "significant coverage in english language" that meets the requirements of the Wikipedia policy WP:SIGCOV. William Harris (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Novinite.com ESCxtra.com Novinite.com DailyMail.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arved (talk • contribs) 11:26:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAILYMAIL cannot be used, and a link to Yahoo is of no value to me. However, the other links are useful, thanks. William Harris (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Two of the references in the article are from the organisation's website, which is not an independent source. The other reference is based on an interview with a staff member and information supplied by the organisation, all three do not meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. William Harristalk 11:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; Has coverage in the English language. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avail yourself to the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTABILITY - a statement of "coverage in the English language" doesn't cut it. There needs to be significant coverage of the topic WP:SIGCOV and not simply a mention. William Harris (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Whiteguru, please identify the "coverage in english language" that meets the requirements of the Wikipedia policy WP:SIGCOV. William Harris (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User William Harris I did not refer to WP:SIGCOV; the significant comment came from Arved. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteguru I referred to SIGCOV - that is the basis for establishing WP:NOTABILITY, which is the basis for keeping or deleting an article. You have stated that the article has coverage; you will need to demonstrate significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV, else your "Keep" appears to have been made on a whim and is invalid (not to mention wasting other editor's time here). William Harris (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - It's a tough one, but between the Bulgarian and English sources there looks like there might be enough to meet GNG. Apparently this is an organization involved in a variety of animal welfare activities, including operating the largest shelter in Bulgaria. There are several hits on Novinite.com. [26] is the best one, but also e.g. [27] and shorter mentions in seemingly dozens of other animal welfare articles. There's some coverage of its endorsement by Kellan Lutz. There's Sofia Globe, some local tv news coverage, Go Guide Bulgaria... It's not a slam dunk, but there's enough here, combined with enough hints at more sources in Bulgarian (which I do not speak) that I fall on the side of weak keep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your assessment, and have withdrawn my earlier delete vote. William Harris (talk) 09:10, 9 September 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 micronations. Tone 20:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of micronation currencies

List of micronation currencies (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)

At the very least, this seems to fail WP:LISTN. "Micronation currency" doesn't appear to be a notable concept on its own, not to mention that most of what's here is sourced pretty dubiously (mostly primary). I can't imagine why there's any reason to collect this all into a separate list article rather than just leaving this information on the page of the individual entries if it's properly sourceable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm inclined to delete per nom, but it seems like the info on this list, if properly sourced of course, could just become a column or two in List of micronations—a list which does appear to pass WP:LISTN, as the topic of micronations has been the subject of multiple journal articles and books according to GBooks and GScholar. However, the merge would be a real pain to execute, unless the Visual Editor is capable of copy-pasting feats with tables that I have hitherto not contemplated. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of these are real currencies, for the most part they're jokes made up one day as part of their imaginary countries. Some contracted with printers or mints to make a small amount play money, perhaps to sell to people who collect tokens, but almost none are actually used in trade. Sources here are largely brief mentions in curiosity articles about the micronations, primary sources, or exonumia websites, with nothing on the topic as a whole. With respect to a merge, that would be reasonable were many of these actually used in these places, but most are tongue-in-cheek. Reywas92^Talk 20:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of micronations - not enough to warrant it's own standalone article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of micronations - interesting enough to keep, but not in its own article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariolovr (talk • contribs) 02:05, 13 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1988–89 Newport County A.F.C. season

1988–89 Newport County A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Owain (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS; see also recent AFD consensus. GiantSnowman 14:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That AFD, as the closer noted, was a narrow consensus for a 9th tier team. This one is for a 5th tier team. It's not comparable! Nfitz (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for something comparable, there have been 18 AfDs on fifth tier seasons in the last month (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18), all of which have ended in deletion. Number 57 11:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as OP fails GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This season is considerably more promising. I have access to Newspapers.com and The Times Digital Archive which yields the following major results (all require registration):The Guardian, 3 April 1989, The Observer, 15 May 1988, The Guardian, 3 March 1989, The Guardian, 31 March 1989, The Times, 18 August 1988, The Times, 19 August 1988, The Times, 16 December 1988, The Times, 28 February 1989, The Times, 11 March 1989, The Times, 6 April 1989

These publications have pretty consistent independent coverage of the events of the season, obviously circulating around the liquidation. There are also plenty of snippet mentions in columns and other coverage. I don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive, but a basic search there also has some very promising possibilities from the time period. I think there's a strong case for WP:GNG being met here. Kosack (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've spent the morning adding what I can from the sources I mentioned. There are still a few Times articles left over, but the meat of the page is there now I feel to meet GNG. Kosack (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kosack. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Spiderone 20:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 08:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - significant coverage, as noted above - which isn't surprising as they'd just been demoted from Division 4, and had significant media coverage at the beginning of the season, and then again later in the season when they were expelled, and finally as the team went bankrupt. Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - multiple coverage from national sources, so meets WP:GNG Chris (talk) 06:39, 8 September 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. Even without considering the ongoing SPI, there is a consensus to delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olakira

Olakira (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)

COI/UPE promotional article of a “musician” who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. All sources used in the article do nothing for WP:GNG as most of them are unreliable whilst the the remaining are announcements of his new music single release. A before search shows no concrete evidence of notability. Celestina007 00:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 00:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 00:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 00:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 00:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It is hard to say that this is a non-notable musician. References and links - some of them are pop candy, others are interviews and evaluation of his contribution to scene. He is watched by media and notable in his own environment. Keep. -- Whiteguru (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru, Interviews are not independent of the subject hence do not adhere to WP:GNG. Furthermore please do provide to this AFD the WP:RS that shows subject of our discussion is notable. Celestina007 12:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agree Interviews are not independent of the subject and sources and before don't show anything that meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. It might just be WP:TOOSOON. Editors do need to provide RS if they are going to claim notability. Voting at AfD without evidence or is becoming more of a problem everyday (from what I've been experiencing).   // Timothy :: talk  04:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable musician. Article is sourced to interviews, press releases, youtube videos and Apple Music links. Did not found much else either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The musician is notable and there are other links to support his notability. I will vote to keep. Keep. -- Brute105 —Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you support your rationale with a reliable source that proves this? Merely saying someone is notable without explaining via policy or use of reliable sources to substantiate how is not a valid argument in an AFD. Celestina007 14:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ongoing SPI Investigation -An ongoing SPI is currently taking place here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamie200896. Celestina007 14:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not convinced that WP:NMUSICIAN is met. Many of the sources are interviews without substantial commentary or short articles with only brief mentions. Some of them refer to the subject's "up-and-coming" status, suggesting that it's too soon for Wikipedia to have an article on him. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References look like press releases, or "contributor" stories which can easily be generated by the subject. I'm not seeing convincing independent coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Murphy (offensive tackle)

Kevin Murphy (offensive tackle) (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)

According to Pro Football Reference, Murphy has never played in an NFL game [28], didn't play in CFL either, so he fails WP:NGRIDIRON unless there's an arena football or XFL playing career I couldn't find. His college career didn't stand out enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH. Coverage is largely routine, mostly pieces such as this brief signing announcement. I've found one good piece here. Fairly brief piece stating he was inducted into a NN local hall of fame. This piece is about his brother, and only mention Kevin obliquely. This is from an unreliable blog. This is a fairly routine piece stating that he had to go to the hospital. Only mentioned in two sentences here He's not that far from GNG, but I'm not seeing enough to get him across that bar, since he fails NGRIDIRON and NCOLLATH. He did win an award (Joe Wolfe I think) in college, but it's not one of the awards that passes NCOLLATH and there's a lot of NN college football awards out there. I just don't think this article quite reaches notability. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete nice work of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator. I have to agree based on the article as presented. Generally, Div I-AA/FCS offensive linemen don't meet our notability guidelines without some other measurable achievement and that seems to be the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My initial search turned up an in-depth profile of Murphy from The Boston Globe that can be viewed here. If additional significant coverage turns up, I could be persuaded that WP:GNG is satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, that's the one good piece I identified in my nomination. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. College offensive linemen (even more so those at the FCS level) rarely receive GNG-level coverage, and Murphy does not appear to be an exception to the general rule. Other than the one feature story uncovered by the nominator, my searches did not locate additional examples of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Fails WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete you have to play in a game to gain notability, not just be involved in pre-season practices.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Hayda

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

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

Article does not comply with GNG and SPIP. Most edits to this page appear to be from the family. Also, no new sources and no legacy, so does not meet NTEMP. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 03:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article is written in a very personal tone, very detailed, but has no specific information creating notability. Any searches online are scant and only point to a few articles about his death or irrelevant inclusion on some lists or other wikis. —Notorious4life (talk) 01:04, 9 September 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 Trust Obey. Tone 20:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rip Saw

Rip Saw (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)

A WP:BEFORE reveals no indication of notability. Of the four references currently cited, one is the AllMusic profile of the band that does not mention the album in question [29], one is a magazine article that does not mention the album [30], one is from a magazine that has a passing mention of the album [31], and one is just the album sleeve [32]. Therefore it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The number of non-notable topics the author of this article has been creating of late should be concerning. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and especially per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Trust Obey#Discography where it is mentioned. Otherwise, it's just another non-notable self-released album that gained no attention. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Trust Obey: Barely found anything about the album aside from an AllMusic review. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Trust Obey, as the group has some notability but this album has no coverage as an item in its own right. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buja Music Awards

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

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

I can't find any third-party, reliable coverage to demonstrate sufficient notability to keep this page. Bundling the subsidiary page Buja Music Awards 2019 in with this discussion ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit: also bundling Buja Music Award for Song of the year with this discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks independent coverage. Pure spam. Self promotion created by the founder of these awards. An awards ceremony giving out "awards" to people he works with. (Funny how the 2019 "Personality Of The Year" is an unknown Australian living and working in Australia.) duffbeerforme (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding delete to include all three. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment apologies for the late addition, but I've just discovered a related page by the same creator - therefore adding Buja Music Award for Best Collaboration to the bundle. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - I believe that some articles for non-notable musicians have tried to use this awards "ceremony" as a point of notability. This one does indeed look like a publicity scheme for the organizers' cronies, and neither the organizers nor the ceremony itself have received reliable media coverage. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:54, 8 September 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 17:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Fox (organist)

William Fox (organist) (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)

Deprodded without explaination by the usual suspect. Recent college graduate with a nice resume but precisely zero of the sources establish notability. [33] is the only source with more than a passing mention of his name, but it's from his employer annoucing the hire and obviously doesn't count. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's easy to find more sources such as this and that. There's also a William Fox who was the organist at Ely Cathedral from 1571 to 1579 and so we need disambiguation not deletion. The failure of the nominator and prodder to identify this shows that they have not followed WP:BEFORE. Such cathedrals keep meticulous records over the centuries and so their important musicians become notable. The worst case for such people would be merger to pages about the cathedrals or a page such as List of musicians at English cathedrals. Deletion is therefore not appropriate per our policies including WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Andrew has presented non-trivial sources and I will likely reiterate them here. WP:MUSICBIO#1 is likely met with the reliable sources. The organist meets our notability guidelines WP:V and passes WP:N. The young organist gets non-trivial coverage in Whitby Gazette here, in Richmondshire Today here, he was a Wells Organ Scholar here, so possibly also a WP:ANYBIO See Organ scholar. Fox was a Wells Cathedral Junior Organ Scholar 2012-14, and later at University of Oxford, where he was also an Organ Scholar. here Lightburst (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  ANYBIO?! That requires a "a well-known and significant award" and this is certainly not well-known! There are tens of thousands of distinguished scholars at universities around the world and that is by no means a maker of Wikipedia notability. You don't get a free article for receiving even the graduate Rhodes Scholarship, which is far better known and significant than this! And which will also get you write-ups in the local news. Reywas92^Talk 21:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per CREATIVE - played at all the major choral-based cathedrals in England. Bearian (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unequivocally meets WP:MUSICBIO: #1 with the non-trivial coverage in IRS and #5 with the two discs on Naxos Zingarese talk · contribs 14:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtland Clavette

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

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

Non-notable college long snapper. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON by never playing in an NFL game. School discus record at Brown isn't enough for WP:NCOLLATH. Since he was with the Buccaneers when this piece was produced, I would say it's not independent, as we shouldn't be using people's employers to demonstrate notability. This piece is independent, but is very brief. This appears to be a reprint of the previous linked piece. Doesn't look to be significant coverage in that piece. I'm just not seeing a NGRIDIRON, NCOLLATH, or GNG pass for this article. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete total failure of notability guidelines for either football players or college athletes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the article was 100% sourced, it would still lose based on WP:IMPACT. The only online sources I find appear to be transactional in nature and those are typically ignored when determining notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Long snapper for Ivy League team is not a likely basis for notability. Cbl62 (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Fails WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:37, 9 September 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 17:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preet Group

Preet Group (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)

Preet Group has been simultaneously created in article space and in draft space. If it were only in article space, it could be draftified as failing to establish corporate notability, and written from the standpoint of the company rather than of third parties. The version in article space still does not establish corporate notability. Google search shows that the company exists, and issues press releases, and belongs to trade associations. We knew that it exists. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability Spiderone 09:57, 14 September 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 17:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Leonard

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

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON by never playing a game in the NFL or CFL and WP:NCOLLATH because his college career does not meet the hurdles for that notability. All 12 references in the article are transaction notices, mostly by the teams he played for. Only the first NOLA reference is usable for assessing notability, as the ones from the teams he played for are not independent, the second NOLA reference is not significant coverage, TurfShowTimes does not look reliable, and the USA Today and Chron.com references are not significant coverage. This is an interview, so not contributing to WP:GNG. Fairly basic coverage here. Most offensive linemen who fail NGRIDIRON generally don't get GNG coverage, and I'm not seeing an exception here. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A fourth-round pick. Meets GNG per [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. Good amount of coverage. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some of the sources noted above by Eddy are feature articles that are useful for creating hte aritcle content and determining notability. Nice work, passes WP:GNG--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Being drafted in and of itself does not confer notability per WP:NGRIDIRON.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG and sources provided by EDDY.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources found by Editorofthewiki. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:25, 14 September 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 Canadian Soccer League. Fenix down (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CSC Mississauga

CSC Mississauga (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)

Has never played for national cup and only primary sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I could be being dense but I can't see this club mentioned at Canadian Soccer League? So delete. If the team is left then redirect. GiantSnowman 09:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Just REdirect to Canadian Soccer LEague. They're not playing in 2020 because of covid, which is why they're not listed as a current team, but they did play the past couple of years and are expected to come back next year. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - plausible search term Spiderone 11:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - since we don't know for certain what will happen, we can't assume that the team will be notable so I'm changing to 'delete' for this Spiderone 17:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added them to the lifetime results tables in the Canadian Soccer League article. They are in the 2018 season and 2019 season articles, so I feel a re-direct is appropriate, especially now that their results are included in the lifetime stats section of the league article. The 2020 season article also mentions how they were initially set to participate in 2020. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Canadian Soccer League. I don't understand why User:Spiderone changed to delete ... if they played in 2018 and 2019, and are discussed in the 2020 league article, and discussed in the target, and are planning to play in 2021 ... why delete? Notability isn't temporary. Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now not that convinced that redirecting is an appropriate outcome. If a footballer fails GNG and NFOOTY, do we redirect the article to the club that they play for? No. So why do we redirect a non-notable club to a league? Spiderone 09:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, I'm not the only person who has seen a local team listed in the newspaper or online schedule, and typed the name into Wikipedia to find out a bit more, and hope to find a link to their website. This doesn't tend to happen to unnotable players. It's a plausible search term; redirects are cheap. It's not like every other team in this league doesn't already have a page. The league itself could never be listed at FPL because it's not sanctioned by FIFA ... so FPL applies to it no more than it applies to the local tiddlywinks team. Nfitz (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never done that. I use this nifty website called "Google" to show me links to the web. I imagine I'm the only one who uses that tool. But then again, I have not read a newspaper since Mandela died. Now a better question is are you referencing this team specifically or any team that shows up in your daily reading? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re: Nfitz comment, I think the league may have used to be FPL because it was previously sanctioned (it was sanctioned for sure by the Canadian Soccer Association), but after 2013 there were multiple scandals, including match fixing and other violations, that the CSA did not want anymore association with them and began the process of forming a new league. As Nfitz said, I feel a re-direct is still appropriate RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure users who never look at a newspaper are typical User:Walter Görlitz. In this case though, because it's local ... on the rare occasion the house is empty on the weekend, I've looked around to see if there are any local games to go do ... and I've certainly seen games in this league being played while passing local pitches ... less so since OL1 became more dominant. In semi-professional leagues like this (which are covered by the international betting operations), I find Google not particularly reliable. I agree with User:RedPatchBoy here ..., even if I seldom stand in 112 :) . Nfitz (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the facts. More papers go out of business on a monthly basis. Online is where most people get their news today. If you want, I can post the actual stats, or you can actually look for them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most historic, biggest, and most important newspapers in the country has been online only for a couple of years. People still read it, and it's still called a newspaper. Surely the message is the media, not the medium User:Walter Görlitz! Now personally, I do get printed paper - mostly because with two kids in the house, I find that they never, ever, pick up a device and read the news. But if I leave it lying around on the table, they become much less ignorant of the bigger world ... that and it provides me with free online access. Nfitz (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2015/an-experts-forecast-canada-will-have-few-if-any-print-newspapers-by-2025/ and about 35,500,000 other online sources. search for newspaper circulation Canada over time. News print is nearly dead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walter Görlitz, why are you talking about newsprint? It's not relevant. Newspapers still exist after newsprint is dead. Have you stopped phoning people after they got rid of rotary dials on telephones, making it impossible to dial a number? Nfitz (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because you raised it as a possible source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One, I never said it was a source - I said I tend to turn to Wikipedia for teams that play at this level - oh, and look, every other team in the league has an article. At the same time, I'm only pushing for a redirect - how isn't redirect to the league almost always the right outcome when every other team in the league has a proper article? Two, how is "newspaper or online schedule" got anything to do with newsprint? I never see those local teams covered in the national papers ... I only see them on the mostly online local newspapers (I suppose you might get paper in the right 10-block area ...). I don't know how you even jumped to newsprint here ... especially given how many major papers have now gone 100% digital, relatively successfully. Nfitz (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. We can address the notability of every other team in the league after this AfD closes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Snow redirect ... AFDing any other articles for teams still in the league, rather than simply redirecting them, would violate WP:POINT. Also, they ALL have much more history and achievements than this team (with the possible exception of Hamilton) so may achieve GNG. Some have even played in national and international cup competitions. Nfitz (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Canadian Soccer League. Maybe the club might receive coverage from secondary sources in the future it's always a possibility. Shotgun pete (talk) 3:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Canadian Soccer League search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Abedi

Mohammad Abedi (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)

No indication that subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NAUTHOR. ... discospinster _talk 15:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neither author nor book is notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 20:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A clear case of WP:TOOSOON. His first book was published only in 2019. Batmanthe8th (talk) 04:59, 9 September 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 17:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Menon

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

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

The article is written in WP:PROMO style, created by a clearly COI editor (4 out of 5 edits are creating this article). The subject claim to fame seems to be included in "Top 100 Indian Leaders in the United Arab Emirates" by Forbes and similar such awards.

Much of the coverage seems to be one lines, one quotes or paid/promoted PR articles. He has two interviews published boosting his success by seemingly unreliable sources. The most significant coverage he has being on cover of Accountant Middle East magazine which is published by CFO Middle East group. This group publishes financial executives views and profile. It is very likely a paid advertising masquerading as trade journal.

The subject's official website mentions the Wikipedia page quite prominently, hence it seems important to them. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE Roller26 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment drowning in all the promotional candy floss is the fact that he won a Bharat Gaurav International Achievement Award. Would that not make him notable?Mccapra (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No first of all he was conferred "Bharat Gaurav Award" by India International Friendship Society in 2009. That award's legitimacy has already been called in their wiki page with sources. Bharat Gaurav International Achievement Award was either started in 2014 or 2012 (unclear to me), and also seems to be one of the scam awards in Delhi where they award few notable figures along with huge number of paid awardees, and get central ministers and other notable figures to award them. Conferring of such awards do not make any person inherently notable. Roller26 (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete super over promotional awards do not automatically convey notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]