Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 September 12 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Fist Of Bean

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. This just seems like an ordinary Snickers commercial. I'm finding very little coverage other than a few articles from when the commercial was first released. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 23:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 23:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 23:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 23:53, 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.  JGHowes  talk 22:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Azad Singh Rathore

Azad Singh Rathore (  | 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, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 17:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 17:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Logs: 2016-12 ✗ G11, 2016-12 ✗ PROD, 2016-12 ✗ PROD
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:00, 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Adverse (film)

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

Lacks coverage. No full lenght reviews from reliable sources. sourced to routine announcements. Not a significant award duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
One blog post is not good enough. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is one review enough?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The film passes WP:NFO, which says 'The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.' ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 04:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
What an absolute load of bullshit. Film was released in 2020. So five years from then is 5 years into the future. So where are these claimed future articles that simply do not exist? Please reconnect with reality before commenting. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment duffbeerforme, I suggest you read WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Donaldd23 ( talk) 22:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Are you suggesting that I made a personal attack? What attack. Anyone claiming articles exist in the future needs a reality check. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Leave DENAMAX ( talk) 15:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

*Keep per WP:NFSOURCES; the film has been the primary topic in here, here and here. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 00:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Per NFSOURCES reproductions of PR are not independent. None of those are any good. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Variety has reproduced a PR release. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:13, 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Carl Haglund (real estate)

Carl Haglund (real estate) (  | 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'm ambivalent about the notability of this person, so I'm nominating it for deletion in order to get the community's consensus on it. Haglund has received significant coverage in reliable sources, almost entirely for his legal problems as a local landlord. All of the reliable sources are local: Seattle Times, The Stranger, The News Tribune (Tacoma), Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle Met, South Seattle Emerald, and so on. There is no coverage of Haglund outside of the Seattle metro area.
The coverage spans 5 years, and is mostly about legal problems (example headline: "Accused "Slumlord" Carl Haglund Promises to Improve Building Where Tenants Are Living with Roaches and Rats"). He recently began a non-profit foundation but it has no coverage at all. Even the bits of positive coverage of him refer to him as "notorious Seattle landlord Carl Haglund, after whom a 2016 law dictating new, more stringent building standards was named."
I expect most cities could produce local coverage of local citizens known/notorious for various business dealings. Although editors have added content to keep it from being solely an attack page, I question whether there should be an article at all. So, keep or delete? Schazjmd  (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd  (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd  (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: Also posted at WikiProject Seattle Schazjmd  (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Mr. Haglund meets WP:GNG: there are substantial articles written about him specifically (although none about his property management company or his very young foundation, which should probably be removed from the article) from reliable sources, and the facts about him are verifiable. Haglund is known for his management of older buildings in some generally lower-income neighborhoods of Seattle, so the term slumlord is certainly loaded and non-neutral, but it has been used so many times by notable people and journalists writing for reliable sources that it is, indelibly, connected to him. I agree that he is primarily known in the Seattle metropolitan area, as like most real estate investors, he has concentrated his investments close to him. The amount of press coverage (largely negative, but some positive) given to Haglund is significant compared to most landlords — and indeed compared to most real estate businesspeople. Among the few non-Seattle-region news articles I could find mentioning Haglund is this one from Socialist Alternative, the monthly newspaper printed by Socialist Alternative (United States), a political party: “Notorious Slumlord” Withdraws Lawsuit, a Win for Sawant and the Housing Justice Movement. It casts Haglund as emblematic of exploitative landlords in the context of SA's campaign for housing justice. Haglund is also mentioned in this Jacobin article: “The Society We Are Fighting for Has to Be Free From All Oppression” which is primarily about Councilmember Sawant and the "Carl Haglund law," as she describes it. White 720 ( talk) 03:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per request from nominator
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 06:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In addition to the coverage mentioned above, there is also non-local coverage from Next City, The Washington Post (for those who aren't aware, the Washington in "Washington Post" refers to Washington, D.C., not the state of Washington), and USA Today. In addition, there are a number of non-reliable sources that are not local, which also hints towards notability. Since t local coverage is significant and there is also non-local coverage, he seems sufficiently notable. Gbear605 ( talk) 15:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep reluctantly. This is an edge case that should not be considered generally applicable. The coverage and the article are almost entirely negative but that is what the RS we have available are actually saying. I'm not impressed by some of the advocacy links above (e.g., Jacobin, Next City) but WaPo is certainly a national RS and the article is substantially about Haglund. (Aside: The USA Today source is not since it is a reprint from local news station KING.) Combined with the local coverage, this meets GNG requirements. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • comment I looked at the WaPo article and it's only a brief mention of Haglund in relation to naming the law; the WaPo article is all about the way the Seattle city government can use their new law to force repairs. I don't think that it has any significant coverage of Haglund. Schazjmd  (talk) 00:12, 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Frank_A._Russell

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

Frank A. Russell does not meet Wikipedia's GNG. He has little to no press coverage, most of which comes from unreliable sources. His wikipedia page is basically a resume. This is a good example of unambiguous advertising or promotion. Additionally, the page creator and primary contributor of the page, User:Bencarstens is a SPA whose only contributions are for Frank A. Russell and Geolearning (The company Frank A. Russell works for). Sonstephen0 ( talk) 21:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:58, 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. Tone 08:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Abdus Sobhan Rahat Ali High School

Abdus Sobhan Rahat Ali High School (  | 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 isn't written in neutral point of view. Fails general notability guidelines. ~ Yahya ( ✉) • 21:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~ Yahya ( ✉) • 21:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 21:48, 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. Tone 08:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Cameron Boyd

Cameron Boyd (  | 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 NACTOR. Minor TV roles. Nominated for a children's acting award. The NYT article just lists his name. No in-depth coverage. Not seeing anything here. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:37, 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. I do not find the keep arguments compelling in the face of the mountain of precedent that tells us that GNIS is not a reliable indicator of what constitutes a populated place. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Derby, Missouri

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

State historical society calls it a minor lead mine. 1950s topo shows nothing particularly indicative of a settlement. This old book further demonstrates that it's more mine than settlement. I'm seeing nothing that indicates it was a town. This mentions Derby, but only briefly, and in the way a local landmark would be mentioned. Also namedropped here. I'm seeing evidence that this was just a mine, while I'm seeing no evidence this was a real town. Whatever it was, it fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 20:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete More mass-produced junk perpetuating false content. Reywas92 Talk 21:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep I've added a bit of content. Yes the community is the location of a lead mine and separating the mine from the community would be challenging perhaps as the the Derby-Doerun Dolomite was named for the mining communities of the area. Was it a town? Hard to say, but it is a significant part of the area as the location of a historic mining area. The GNIS folks just say populated place - so perhaps the "unincorporated community" should be changed (what is the technical difference there?).
    • GNIS is not a reliable source if we're being honest. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headquarters, Arizona where it called a National Park service headquarters building a "populated place". And anyway, being a populated place isn't enough to pass WP:GEOLAND. It has to be a legally recognized populated place to pass that, and I have still seen no evidence of that. As a lead mine/cluster of buildings it doesn't meet GEOLAND or GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 01:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Seems the GNIS is a reliable source. Yes, they have made mistakes (they be human). I have found a few mistakes and notified them concerning the mistakes. What group doesn't make occasional mistakes? Whatever you wish to call it - Derby exists and is shown on USGS topo maps and has a geologic unit named for it. Vsmith ( talk) 02:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Saying blandly that "Seems the GNIS is a reliable source" in the face of all the evidence we have amassed to the contrary is just not good enough. The evidence speaks for itself: Derby as a place existed, but it was not the sort of place that our article claims it to be. Mangoe ( talk) 14:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Derby is/was a lead mine and needs to meet basic notability standards--multiple, in-depth coverage by reliable sources. I don't see anyting that fits the bill. Glendoremus ( talk) 03:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment By default, GNIS calls almost every human-built structure a populated place. Most so-called populated places are NOT communities. I've seen hundreds of cases where GNIS identified railroad stations, ranches, wharves, dairy farms, etc. as populated places. Clearly they do not meet any reasonable definition of a community. Glendoremus ( talk) 04:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Expanded sufficiently to demonstrate this historic mining community has lent its name to a nearby geological formation. 72.49.7.25 ( talk) 19:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Sorry, but the reference you added simply states "The formation was named for the Derby mine (now Federal mine), near Elvins." Nothing adds any credence to your assertion that Derby was a community. And if you want to assert that the mine was notable, you still need to show multiple in-depth articles articles from reliable sources. Glendoremus ( talk) 20:23, 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 redirect to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (British game show)#Top prize winners. Most of the keep !votes are substanitally lacking in policy and reason. After discounting them, there's a rough consensus to redirect. If he does become notable in the future, the article can be easily recreated. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Donald Fear

Donald Fear (  | 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 person. being the sixth person to win something on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire might be an impressive dinner story but it doesn't make him notable. There is a complete lack of in depth coverage as well. Praxidicae ( talk) 19:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

That's like saying "give me a credit limit of $500k because I might win the lottery one day." Praxidicae ( talk) 20:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
You don’t play the lottery 2A02:C7F:7A9B:A100:1524:E735:CED6:3FD1 ( talk) 20:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
You're correct but my argument is spot on. We don't rely on the potential for future notability. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Ahh yes, Wikipedia, the site where everyone contributes knowledge for everyone to know! Unless, of course, someone would prefer to take time out of their day to say they'd rather deprive you of it. Fancy looking up the six winners of a Gameshow spanning over 20 years who's wins have been highly documented? Yeah, tough. Some bloke said so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurugby54 ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep or Merge while keeping all necessary information in the merged section - this person is the first person to have won and used only one lifeline. I know that people are usually not considered notable for 1 event, so maybe all WWTBAM winners should be merged into one article (except for the ones who are notable for other reasons as well). 45.251.33.48 ( talk) 03:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A WP:ONEEVENT person. I hope the closer is keeping note of all the mysterious IP editors who are participating in this discussion. - Indy beetle ( talk) 07:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Donald Fear is notable as he has made headline news around the UK. He will only become more notable in the same way that the other 5 jackpot winners of the show have. The absence of reliable sources can be addressed, and I will try to add as many as I can find soon. The fact that his brother also competed on the show last year means that the Wikipedia article is not just about Donald Fear's singular appearance on one games show. Bibeyjj ( talk) 08:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I have added references, expanded and rewritten certain sections, and generally made the majority of the article well-referenced. It has grown to a size where the stub categorisation could potentially be removed. The article has improved significantly since the deletion request was first addressed, and I encourage users to reconsider whether Donald Fear is not notable enough for an article. Bibeyjj ( talk) 08:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As mentioned above, all but one of the other winning contestants have articles. I realise that Keppel and Gibson have since gone on to become Eggheads which increases their notability, but Edwards and Wilcox have articles seemingly solely due to winning the jackpot on the show, so why should Fear’s article be any different? Mojo0306 ( talk) 09:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.-- Laun chba ller 10:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
By main page, you mean the Who Wants to be a Millionaire? page, right? Foxnpichu ( talk) 21:55, 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.  JGHowes  talk 22:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Rock, Missouri

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

State historical society calls it "Rock Post Office", and it frankly seems to have been nothing more than a post office. Google maps gives me a trailer home, a couple barns, and one house. The SHS source also makes it clear that this post office was in a small portion of a rural store. It's not on the small-scale 1940 topo that I can find. All signs point to this being a case of GNIS error in identifying a fourth-class post office as a town. Hog Farm Bacon 19:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • This one is a bit problematic as it isn't depicted on a USGS topo map. Seems GNIS error in identifying a fourth-class post office as a town is a bit off though. These historic post offices were typically located within a country store which served the citizens of a rural area back when travel was likely by horse and buggy and local country stores/post offices were important. Some folks may have their modern citified blinders on :) Sorry 'bout that. Roll on, Vsmith ( talk) 14:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Vsmith: I'm a lifelong rural resident, and I'm aware that these don't meet the GEOLAND requirement of "legally recognized, populated place". While these country stores were a local gathering place, Wikipedia doesn't consider local gathering place to be notable. The rural Midwest is full of extinct country churches, random local primary schools in the middle of cow pastures, named farms/ranches, and places where one family had a house there long enough that people started calling it "the old Smith place". I wouldn't contend that any of the above are notable, even though some of the names lived on enough to make it on maps, even to the present day. If local importance with no evidence of legal recognition is considered notability, then an RFC on WP: GEOLAND is necessary. Hog Farm Bacon 15:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Seems the establishment of a post office should be evidence of "legal recognition" ... unless they were illegally established. Vsmith ( talk) 19:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Whether post office naming constitutes a legal authority is already problematic, but in any case the problem here is that you keep assuming that every place that had a post office was some sort of community. That's just not how it was. 4th class post offices were frequently moved and renamed, often simply because the house changed hands or because the office was moved from one house to another. A lot of them were in railroad depots with nothing else much around them. Even now there are still post offices which was just a window or counter in a store or the like: the post office in Essex, Montana is in the office of a motel. Post offices were established to give people a place to collect their mail in the era before Rural Free Delivery, which is why there were so many of them around the turn of the century. Mangoe ( talk) 20:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Cited reference says clearly that Rock was a post office in a local store, named for the limestone rock on which it sat. No reference indicates that this was a community. Glendoremus ( talk) 03:23, 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 20:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Margret A. Treiber

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR notability. I couldn't find any significant mentions of her or reviews of her work in reliable sources. The only source in the article is also unreliable - written by a community member not affiliated with the news website. Whisperjanes ( talk) 19:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes ( talk) 19:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes ( talk) 19:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 19:44, 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. Tone 20:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Giorgio Razzoli

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. No sensible WP:ATD. Has been in the CAT:NN backlog for over 11 years. Boleyn ( talk) 19:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:06, 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 merge to Tan-Tar-A Resort. Tone 20:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Tan-Tar-A Resort Seaplane Base

Tan-Tar-A Resort Seaplane Base (  | 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 private airport for seaplanes. It exists, as demonstrated by database entries like this one, but frankly all you can say about this airport is that it exists and give the basic geographic information about it. WP:NAIRPORT is only an essay, but it looks pretty common-sense to me. It states that private airports are generally non-notable, and the lack of coverage for this one seems to bear that out. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 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. Sandstein 17:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Alberta, Missouri

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

Likely GNIS error. GNIS calls it a populated place, but the state historical society calls it a short-lived rural post office. Google maps only has a couple barns and a business selling mobile homes at the site. An old 1953 topo map only has two or three buildings at the site. Local history book from 1919 mentions the post office closing, and someone being from near Alberta, but from all indications, this was only a closed fourth-class post office and nothing further. Yet another reason why it's a bad idea to mass-produce stubs from GNIS, especially when other sources don't call it a town. Hog Farm Bacon 18:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The point is, the community doesn't have evidence that it ever did exist. What you have is evidence of a 4th class post office. Mangoe ( talk) 18:56, 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 merge to Jean Grey. Tone 08:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Alternative versions of Jean Grey

Alternative versions of Jean Grey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the majority of the other similar AfDs on these topics, this is an unnecessary article split for the purpose of shoving off overly in-depth plot information that should have been condensed and summarized. As an offshoot, it does not establish independent notability to meet WP:GNG. Aside from a singular minor interview response that's hardly important enough to bother including anywhere, there is no real world information in the article that makes it worth merging. TTN ( talk) 18:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:33, 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. Tone 08:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

ScanSource

ScanSource (  | 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 tried stubifying this as an alternative to deletion (since it's almost entirely an unsourced puff piece but looked like there was potential for notability), but IPs geolocating near the company's headquarters keep reverting that, so guess I'm going down the AfD path instead. Appears to fail WP:NCORP - the biggest claim to notability appears to be the "best places to work" and "Fortune's world's most admired companies." For the former, it's ~20th place on the list for several years, which doesn't seem especially noteworthy, and for the latter, I've failed to find significant coverage from Forbes explaining why it's "most admired" and it's not even in the top 100 on that list). This article is a puff piece without reliable sources, there have been a lot of IPs geolocating near the company's headquarters editing it, and the best coverage I found from a BEFORE was investment outlook and merger + acquisition news (textbook WP:MILL). GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:20, 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 redirect to Soulcrusher (Operator album). Tone 08:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Soulcrusher (song)

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

Unsourced since creation in 2008, and I can't see how this passes WP:NSONG. Merge and redirect to Soulcrusher (Operator album) as {{ R from song}}, taking the hatnote with it but as {{redirect|Soulcrusher (song)|the song by White Zombie|Soul-Crusher (song)}}. (Soul-Crusher (song) is already an R from song.) Narky Blert ( talk) 18:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • No. Chart positions are a good sign that a song might be notable, but notability is more so established by whether or not there is substantial coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:04, 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Noah Berkson

Noah Berkson (  | 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, WP:TOOSOON Kleuske ( talk) 18:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kleuske ( talk) 18:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske ( talk) 18:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Kleuske ( talk) 18:06, 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. Tone 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Haitham Kassem

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER   //  Timothy ::  talk  18:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  18:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist ( talk) 08:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete I have done a search in Arabic and found that there is a lot of coverage of Haitham Kassem al-Tahir who is a former defence minister and who is still very active and is definitely notable. He has an ar.wiki article with no English equivalent. It seems he is so well-known that he is sometimes referred to just as Haitham al=Kassem rather than with his full name. However I'm pretty sure that the subject of this stub article is not the same person. Of the two sources in the current article one looks like it's dead and the other is just a passing mention. All of the other hits I've got in my search are to the former defence minister and not to this guy, so I think it's safe to conclude he's not notable. Mccapra ( talk) 10:54, 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. Tone 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Harvard Mountaineering Club

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purdue Outing Club, university interest group without independent coverage. Notability not established with substantive sources, entirely paraphrased from non-independent source [3]. Reywas92 Talk 17:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 Talk 17:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:06, 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.  JGHowes  talk 22:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Serial month

Serial month (  | 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 is the definition of a term. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY: "articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded beyond a definition, Wikipedia is not the place for them."   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:48, 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. Tone 18:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Suno Mahabharat Devdutt Pattanaik ke Saath

Suno Mahabharat Devdutt Pattanaik ke Saath (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet GNG. BEFORE showed promos, short interviews and mentions but nothing that addresses the topic directly and in depth.   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:37, 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. Tone 17:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

List of politicians of royal heritage

List of politicians of royal heritage (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced list of people, on a characteristic that sounds more significant than it really is. As has been repeatedly pointed out by scientists, virtually everybody of European heritage is a descendant of Charlemagne, virtually everybody of Asian heritage is a descendant of Genghis Khan, and on and so forth -- not everybody can actually document their family trees that far back, but that's solely an inconsistency of human record-keeping, and doesn't change the fact that basically all humans are descendants of royalty along one or more of our genealogical lines. To be fair, the list is keeping things more narrow and manageable, listing (but still not actually referencing) only politicians who happen to be immediate children or grandchildren of royalty, but even that isn't a distinction that necessarily makes a politician special -- happening to have a royal parent or grandparent doesn't give a politician any special status or authority over his or her colleagues in and of itself. So this is basically just an unsourced list of trivia, not an important or defining distinction for a politician to hold. Bearcat ( talk) 17:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Useless list. As Bearcat says, apparently every person alive today of European ancestry can claim Charlemagne as an ancestor [4] so, arguably, all ethnically European politicians can be put on this list - and one could probably credibly argue that everyone on Earth, or the vast majority, are descended from an ancient royal. Might as well have a list of all politicians who have 10 fingers and toes. Sowny ( talk) 16:52, 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 17:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

735 St. Clair

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

Article does not meet GNG or NBUILD. One of the refs is to a National Register of Historic Places Registration Form application but the application is for a different building (see date built and address).   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:08, 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 17:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Uchechukwu Otti

Uchechukwu Otti (  | 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 singer ─ The Aafī ( talk) 16:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ( talk) 16:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ( talk) 16:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Why vote twice? That's against the rules and you added nothing to your previous vote anyway. –– DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 22:49, 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. Tone 17:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Free society

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

Delete as incoherent content fork. This page does not have a clearly defined topic. The lead describes this page as detailing the libertarian conception of a free society. In itself, that is a problem because to describe a libertarian free society is to describe libertarianism. ie, this would be a content fork. However, the content does not match the lead, and does not describe the libertarian concept of a free society. For example, at least two of the three authors cited in the second paragraph to define "free society" are definitely not libertarians.

The content in general discusses civil liberties, political freedom, freedom of speech and liberty. It adds nothing to those discussions that each of those pages have. There is no overarching concept uniting them supported by the literature. (By contrast, there are coherent topics like open society.) I can't think how it can be improved without simply content forking. What is a "free society" is an issue in many philosophies, but it would be WP:synth to assemble those theories on one page.

As a page linked to in Wikipedia, there are also problems. There are pages which link here because the page is part of the libertarianism template, even though the content is not about libertarian ideas. And then there are pages with links to the page that (a) clearly don't mean a libertarian free society and (b) cannot be assumed to mean the same conception of a free society. (eg "X campaiged for a free society").

I'm not a deletionist by nature, but I can't see how this page can be rescued from being a messy content fork. OsFish ( talk) 15:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:44, 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. Tone 17:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Bethany Bridge

Bethany Bridge (  | 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 bridge. My prod rationale was Non-notable bridge. This just says it's a bridge and gives its coordinates. This is a brief notice that the bridge was closed due to filming, not significant coverage of the bridge. The information on the bridge here is mirrored from this article. I'm not convinced this is a reliable source, but it's not significant coverage anyway. Not a reliable source here. I'm seeing no way this bridge passes WP:GEOFEAT or WP:GNG., which still stands. Deprodded with a suggestion to merge, but since the content is completely unsourced, and looks WP:UNDUE for coverage of one relatively minor bridge at the lake article, I'm thinking deletion is the best call here. Hog Farm Bacon 15:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 15:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 15:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 15:21, 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. Tone 17:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

...less than 24 hours.../Journey Into the Fields of Pain

...less than 24 hours.../Journey Into the Fields of Pain (  | 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 album. All of the references in the article either don't mention this album, are not independent of the subject, or don't mention the subject. WP:BEFORE turning up nothing better. Part of the product of an indeffed user who's been cranking out non-notable articles like this lately. Hog Farm Bacon 15:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 15:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 15:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 15:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. A limited edition cassette with no evidence of notability. Of the seven sources, three are the record company's website or the sleeve notes of the cassette itself, one is a directory listing of mail order companies that include the record label but make no mention of this cassette, one is an interview on a blog with an unrelated band who happen to mention the record company and its owner in passing without mentioning this cassette, and another is a French fanzine with one-sentence summaries of each cassette produced by the record company. The only reliable source, The Morning Call, makes no mention of this cassette. Even if you were to allow all these sources, they still say nothing more than that this cassette exists. Redirection is not an option because of WP:XY, and anyway, it's doubtful that either artist would survive an AfD nomination. Richard3120 ( talk) 18:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. With so little actual coverage, this fails WP:NALBUMS. There is nothing of note here to merge elsewhere. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per all of the above. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 18:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for the reasons mentioned by the voters above and at all the other recent AfDs for album and band articles recently created by Soul Crusher. That person can discuss his collection of obscure industrial albums at scenester blogs. This one was not noticed by anyone outside of an esoteric community of collectors. See also the incident investigation here. –– DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 22:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per WP:XY. Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Per above, not enough coverage to be notable. Alex-h ( talk) 13:57, 15 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 17:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Districts and Schools using PAPER

Districts and Schools using PAPER (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even if this could be reliably sourced, a list of organizations using a particular product is no basis for an article - it's trivia, and based on the current sourcing, promotional trivia. -- Pontificalibus 15:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Pontificalibus 15:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:30, 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 redirect to Abu Lubaba ibn Abd al-Mundhir. As has been demonstrated, this is an alternate name for the existing article. No need to prolong this discussion, as we have a consensus, folks. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Boulbaba

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

Biographical article which has extremely little information and has been unreferenced for the last 13 years. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Gabès and rename per Mccapra. Moneytrees🏝️ Talk🌴 Help out at CCI! 11:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Abu Lubaba ibn Abd al-Mundhir per HyperGaruda. Moneytrees🏝️ Talk🌴 Help out at CCI! 15:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Definitely not a hoax and a well-known (quasi) historical figure in Tunisia and yes it should be Sidi Boulbaba. A topic WikiProject Tunisia may be interested in creating a decent article on. I'm not volunteering to do it as the search I've done doesn't bring up RIS I could easily work with. The subject is almost certainly notable but we can't keep an unsourced bio. I'd suggest as an ATD redirecting to Gabès where he is sort of the local patron saint, but would not oppose deletion without prejudice against recreation if someone works up a properly-sourced article. Mccapra ( talk) 11:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Agreed. I couldn't find enough credible information to make a decent article, but this is way out of my sphere of knowledge. A redirect to be created later by an expert seems like the right way to go for now. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 12:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Moneytrees, Mccapra, and Fritzmann2002: Is this enough to establish that they are the same person? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks @ Eddie891 and HyperGaruda: Great find! Yes this clearly is the same person so the correct redirect target. Re the title ‘Sidi’, articles about Christian saints have ‘saint’ in the title. It’s not exactly the same thing, but we have Sidi Mahrez etc. Mccapra ( talk) 16:03, 23 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) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Habanos S.A.

Habanos S.A. (  | 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 case of Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill lacks sufficient RS thus fails WP:COMPANY Dtt1 Talk 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dtt1 Talk 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dtt1 Talk 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:03, 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 Not Required. Page already speedy deleted by admin for WP:CSD A7 (non-admin closure) Roller26 ( talk) 21:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Vijayakumar Tamilanban

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

Not notable. He wrote one book which did not receive much attention. Chuka Chief ( talk) 14:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per the nomination, subject fails WP:GNG

Patrickmee ( talk) 05:38, 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 redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network#Former original programming. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

National Lampoon's Funny Money

National Lampoon's Funny Money (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NTV: " the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone[...]a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage." Extensive searching on newspapers.com found only TV Guide listings and "buzz" articles about Jimmy Pardo that only mention the show in passing. Likewise, the two sources I linked at the bottom of the page are also a "buzz" article on Jimmy Pardo that only tangentially mentions the show, and a Variety blurb mentioning an episode count in the greater context of GSN's scheduling.

Everything else I found is merely directory listings (TV.com, IMDb, etc.), message boards, parenthetical mentions in articles about Jimmy Pardo, or Z-list comedians' websites/social media accounts mentioning that they got their 15 minutes of fame by performing on this show. In short, this show seems to have come and gone without anybody noticing. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The show has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Television Shows. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network, where it is already listed - The entry in the encyclopedia mentioned above consists only of a short paragraph summarizing the basic premise of the game show, which is not particularly in-depth, and provides no real information demonstrating notability. Pretty much all other sources are the same - very brief mentions of the show that prove it existed, but no actual coverage that could sustain an article. I was initially going to just vote to Delete as I could not find an appropriate place on any of the National Lampoon-related articles that would make sense as a Redirect target, but then I noticed that it is already included in the list of shows broadcast by the network it was on, which seems like it would work as the target of a Redirect. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • We already have an article which seems quite adequate and so there's no need to find some great tome on the topic to "sustain" some hypothetical, huge screed – "Enough is as good as a feast". The professional encyclopedia demonstrates that a brief entry for this topic is sensible and appropriate and there's no particular need for anything more. Andrew🐉( talk) 15:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I am afraid that I can't agree that a single sentence and the schedule for what time it aired can be considered significant coverage. That book is one of the items I was referring to when I referred to sources that have brief mentions that do nothing but prove that WP:ITEXISTS, without actually indicating any notability. The Variety article was also already mentioned and argued against by the initial nomination, so I was already considering that when I made my comment. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:32, 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. Tone 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Tmronow

Tmronow (  | 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 and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 TT me 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

The Bechdel Cast

The Bechdel Cast (  | 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. Passing mentions, a review of an episode and lots of merchandise. Kleuske ( talk) 13:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Kleuske ( talk) 13:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Kleuske ( talk) 13:09, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Naina Sarwar

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

Couldn't find any sources. Created by blocked user (paid). TamilMirchi ( talk) 00:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 00:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 00:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Sources on the page suggests it passes WP:GNG#Entertainers - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Extended feature also here on her career [15]. Again - the editor who is nominating has a history of putting articles up for deletion / creating unnotable articles of actors he likes without discussion. Neutral Fan ( talk) 01:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What about sources? We need sources that cover her in depth. She played the lead in one notable film while the other films are not notable because there is no significant coverage. TamilMirchi ( talk) 01:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
What do you mean? All the other films are notable and do have reliable coverage [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] Neutral Fan ( talk) 01:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC). reply
She is not mentioned in the last three reviews (photo does not count). TamilMirchi ( talk) 01:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
TamilMirchi - and why doesn't photos count? where is the rule which says that? who ever created that ToI article - obviously acknowledge that Naina starred in those films. Anyway, along with the above - there is also these [21] [22] [23] [24]. Surely, enough to stay. Neutral Fan ( talk) 22:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete sources need to be about a person. If there are reviews of a film that fail to mention a particular person appearing in the film in them this is a sign the role is not significant and thus not leading to acting related notability. We also need to be very vigilant against articles created by processes involving paid editing. Wikipedia is not a Who's Who pay to get included platform. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Article fails GNG, BASIC and NACTOR. Sources are mentions, nothing that covers the subject directly and indepth. It might just be TOOSOON, but WP is not CRYSTAL   //  Timothy ::  talk  18:20, 22 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 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Annie Harvilicz

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

Not-notable subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. I did an evaluation of all 12 citations for the purpose of establishing (or not) this subject's notability. My results are posted at Talk:Annie Harvilicz#Notability evaluation. My conclusion was that this subject fails the WP:BASIC notability tests. Normal Op ( talk) 01:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Normal Op ( talk) 01:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 02:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 02:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Article reads somewhat promotional. As researched, there is no substantial notability in the references. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 10:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The closest thing to notability I see here is a very brief mention in the LA Times. I did not find anything else in my own quick search. I would not be as quick to dismiss some of the sources as Normal Op is in their useful notability evaluation, but I still don't see anything that constitutes WP:BASIC. I am curious if Dogsforlife1001 has input. Jmill1806 ( talk) 19:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Not so sure - Keep: Some coverage (one-line mentions) [1]What do we know about the Animal Wellness Foundation other than Dr. Harvilicz's role as its founder? Is that the AWF that goaded the People's Republic of China to reclassify dogs and to ban the eating of dogs' tissues? [2] We know that Wayne Pacelle, former President of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), is involved (reputedly as the founder of AWF's activist wing, AWA, a PAC; however, he is also called 'a volunteer) [3], which may have been able to promote a shift in food procurement policy in San Francisco. [4] [5] [6] Is that Animal Wellness Foundation itself significant? [7] [8] It seems that AWF and AWA have been quite busy doing many (seemily uncoordinated) things (where there is much to do), and that there is much more where there is a will to search for it. Then, of course, there are efforts of her activist organizations. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] It seems that AWF and AWA have been quite busy doing many (seemily uncoordinated) things (where there is much to do), and that there is much more where there is a will to search for it. MaynardClark ( talk) 04:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC) MaynardClark ( talk) 04:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Sources

  1. ^ Animal Wellness Center Announces Grand Opening. Page 9. February 5, 2010. Beverly Hills Courier. Accessed September 10. 2020.
  2. ^ The Bark Editors. Chinese Gov Proposes to Reclassify Dogs and Ban Dog Meat Trade. April 2020. The Bark. Accessed September 10. 2020.
  3. ^ Gunther M. The return of Wayne Pacelle. July 19, 2018. Nonprofit Chronicles. Accessed September 10 2020.
  4. ^ Animal Wellness Applauds San Francisco for Landmark Food Procurement Policy ("replacing their total volume of animal products with plant-based foods by at least 50% by 2024"), a 'Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP)' 'policy movement' occurring in numerous cities around the United States.
  5. ^ [ Staff Reports. Program offers financial rewards for cockfighting convictions. December 9, 2019. Pacific Daily News USA TODAY Network. Accessed September 10, 2020.]
  6. ^ Veterinarians lead council for animal protection: Animal Wellness has named 10 veterinarians to spearhead nationwide advocacy for animals. November 20, 2019. Veterinary Practice News. Accessed September 10. 2020 - Feature photo is Dr. Harvilicz
  7. ^ Pet Product News Staff. Animal Wellness Foundation Creates Coronavirus-Related Emergency Fund Program. Apr 7, 2020. Pet Product News Staff. Accessed September 10, 2020
  8. ^ American Wild Horse Campaign, Animal Wellness join with bipartisan members to protect wild horses: Advocacy groups push for House floor amendment to allocate $11 million of the current budget to PZP birth control to humanely manage wild horse and burro populations, Curbing Amount Spent on Roundups and Incarceration. July 19, 2020. American Wild Horse Campaign. Accessed September 10. 2020.
  9. ^ Staff Reports. Program offers financial rewards for cockfighting convictions. December 9, 2019. Pacific Daily News USA TODAY Network. Accessed September 10, 2020.
  10. ^ Profile of Animal Welfare Foundation. Nonprofit Explorer: Research Tax-Exempt Organizations. Accessed September 10, 2020.
  11. ^ https://www.ktvn.com/story/41492081/after-dog-neglect-suffering-animal-wellness-demands-end-to-state-depart-program-transferring-bomb-sniffing-dogs - dead link
  12. ^ Nicolson D. Animal Wellness Calls on New York Mayor Bill de Blasio: Animal Wellness Action and the Animal Wellness Foundation want mayor to consider carriage horse ban. March 6, 2020 8:39 am ET. Patch.com (Farmington Hills, MI)>Business. Accessed September 10, 2020
  13. ^ Clark CA. Animal Wellness Forms National Veterinary Council. December 1, 2019. LA Daily Post. Accessed September 10, 2020.
  14. ^ Animal Wellness announces National Law Enforcement Council. June 22, 2019. The Norman Transcript. Accessed September 10, 2020.
@ MaynardClark: Don't confuse the various organizations. AWF is the charitable arm of Harvilicz's veterinary practice, like when someone cannot pay for veterinary care. AWA is a new PAC founded by animal rights person Wayne Pacelle. Though Harvilicz may be a board member of AWA ( per AWA's website), neither she nor her AFW can "inherit notability" from being a board member of something else that MAY be notable. This is an AfD about Harvilicz, not Pacelle, not AWA-the-PAC, and not really AFW (although that's debatable since it's covered in Harvilicz's article and Harvilicz's creation). Now your LINKSPAM/ REFBOMB is of poor quality and I'm not going to check ALL of your citations. I checked several, and found only ONE that even mentioned Harvilicz's name, and that was just a single quote (not an article about Harvilicz). Most were about AWA and not AWF. I notice that often when AWA is mentioned, the two organizations are mentioned together ("AWA and AWF") but those articles do NOT cover AWF, they just cover AWA activity. So perhaps AWF is hoping to ride the coat tails of AWA, but per Wikipedia policy WP:INHERITORG, notability cannot be inherited — a person doesn't inherit notability for being associated with an organization, an org doesn't inherit notability by having a well-known person associated with it, and a second org doesn't inherit notability from a first org just because it's associated with it. Either Harvilicz and/or Animal Wellness FOUNDATION must stand on its own and get its own coverage (not brief mentions, either) or its just not notable. MaynardClark, you really need to start checking your citations before link-spamming/ref-bombing irrelevant stuff and wasting other editor's time. You've been plunking down heaps of links in the few articles we've crossed paths on lately. And please start reading Wikipedia policy. Normal Op ( talk) 08:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Normal Op:Good distinction. However, in my notes, I posed the question about whether the Foundation itself is notable. In that spirit, note the coverage of AWF. Their own websites make claims for Harvilicz's direct involvement with all those efforts, but we want not to include self-reporting. But my response was, 'Not so sure - Keep' (not merely 'Keep') because it seemed that there was reason to do more inquiry (not merely to claim that there is nothing out there). Other editors' (and my) 'busy times' are not the best time periods for taking on a fight (but why do I care?). Well, AWF and AWA are interesting, but to your point, a number of other persons are out there doing the work while veterinary practice continues. Hmmm. I did notice the coverage by smaller newspapers (e.g. Norman, Oklahoma). Surely merely attending the 25th Anniversary Genesis Awards ceremony in 2011 (and having several photos taken with celebrities) is not in itself notable. 'Dr. Harvilicz is a member of the AWF/AWA National Veterinary Council...' (her own organization). MaynardClark ( talk) 10:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Please don't re-edit older AfD discussion comments! I am NOT going to re-read your (substantially changed) lengthy comment (the one above mine) in order to figure out what is different. Always add new content below. Use strike-out if you want to delete something. Normal Op ( talk) 16:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I agree. I am sympathetic to the other topics raised by MaynardClark, but I'm not seeing a plausible way in which they make Annie Harvilicz herself notable. My vote is still delete. Jmill1806 ( talk) 21:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Thank you. I suspect that the decision will be 'delete' (in part because of life factors that have prevented her from doing more at her young age. MaynardClark ( talk) 22:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your contribution too. It would be nice to reconsider this in the future if the relevant factors for WP:GNG change for the subject. Jmill1806 ( talk) 22:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I wonder whether or not the topic of China's claimed ban or regulation of dog eating deserves a mention of the sources of social influence on that policy. If so, was AWA/AWF's claimed role in that change sufficiently notable to deserve a mention in an article on the topic? [1] MaynardClark ( talk) 16:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Like I said previously on this page, AWA is the PAC, and AWF (not a PAC) is riding their coattails. The article is about PAC-related activities. The article doesn't mention Harvilicz and only mentions AWF in passing which doesn't contribute towards notability. Normal Op ( talk) 17:01, 15 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 draftify. Cutting through the walls of text, it seems the rough consensus is that this article should 1) go to the draftspace and 2) go through AFC before being mainspaced. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Aliza Ayaz

Aliza Ayaz (  | 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 Activist. Net-worth even 390 million pounds(no refs)? The article was started by User:Az.jooma the previous draft was rejected on 5th August 2019, not sure what has changed since then, for this article to be moved from the Draft space to the main space. The editing trend indicates paid editing. Angus1986 TALK 13:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Update: The sockpuppets cleverly moved the page of her brother from main space to User Talk and requested the page to be deleted. Clearly indicate paid editing. Angus1986 TALK 13:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC) @ AngusWOOF Need your opinion over here, since you rejected the draft last year with the same old references. Newly added sources aren't reliable. Angus1986 TALK 15:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Being a genuine activist doesn't make one notable, she fails notability and the editing on her page and the creation of her brother's page indicate paid editing. Angus1986 TALK 15:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • (The original nomination claimed the page was "Clearly a scam." The nominator has since clarified the wording, but AP was obviously rebutting nom's now-removed accusation. It would have been clearer to strike the claim than to remove it completely.) pburka ( talk) 15:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 14:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 14:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I removed the uncited net worth claim. pburka ( talk) 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify It's heavily promotional with most of the article being large blocks of quotations from her. I can't tell from the sources where she would be independently notable. If the primary editor can provide WP:THREE of the best sources, that would be more helpful. Needs newspaper coverage, not blogs, not from within her associated organizations that are showering her with accolades. Teen Choice Awards for example is completely random and seems to be a vaguely connected local award not the ones they show on television. Winning her school's local awards isn't notable either. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 15:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your valuable feedback. It makes sense. :) Angus1986 TALK 15:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The first edit to the article was by Az.jooma with the edit summary "KGS IT staff creating page". KGS is likely "Karachi Grammar School" which the subject attended. So, rather than the overly-hasty accusation of "a scam", "paid editing" and "sockpuppetry", the article could just as easily have been created by staff and students who share an interest in their relatively-illustrious one-time student (and perhaps share the same IP address)? I think that good faith should be assumed until proof is provided of paid editing or as a result of Angus1986's ongoing SPI report. Esowteric+ Talk 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The proof is that they added fake "Net Worth of 390 million pounds" and the suspected sock puppet "Ucliehcs" created an article on her brother Aashir Ayaz(also added 350 million pounds on his page) and when I placed a speedy deletion tag, the user tactically moved the page from the main space to User Talk page. Angus1986 TALK 16:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
These are clearly novice editors, and they probably copied the article to user talk space in a misguided attempt to save their work from deletion (perhaps thinking it would be lost). Esowteric+ Talk 15:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Esowteric+ Talk 09:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Esowteric+ Talk 15:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Three best independent, reliable sources to support notability:
Brandysnario isn't a notable/reliable source, doesn't count. Also, the people who created the page for her brother intentionally moved from main space to User Talk to avoid deletion(after I placed a speedy deletion tag),so not so novice people. Moreover, it has been draftified by an admin, so I am pretty sure this will be draftified too. Good luck saving. AngusMEOW ( chatter • paw trail) 18:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Very well, then, try this for a third independent, reliable source:
Have opened an entry at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is brandsynario.com a reliable source? Regarding notability: Note that many reliable sources do not have a Wikipedia article. Esowteric+ Talk 18:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Also, what you failed to mention was that Draft:Aashir Ayaz had just one unreliable source, so the two cannot be equated. Esowteric+ Talk 19:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Putting aside the blackening of editors' names, the real question is: Has this particular subject a valid claim to notability? Esowteric+ Talk 21:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Esowteric I understand you have a Conflict Of Interest but the same articles were presented before in the last submission and it was rejected by a very experienced editor. The subject clearly fails WP:GNG. :) AngusMEOW ( chatter • paw trail) 06:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Please note: AngusMEOW is former Angus1986 and is not related to me. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The task here is to assess the current evidence about this subject, in this current case. I've debatably provided 3 or 4 sources to support a claim of notability for the subject. As I said, sources can be reliable without themselves having Wikipedia articles (for example, some local newspapers, some peer-reviewed scientific journals and many web sites). What criteria are you using to assess sources in Wikipedia articles before making AfD nominations? Yes, the article is "overgrown" as it stands, but it could be rigorously pruned and edited. Esowteric+ Talk 08:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify References 1,3,4 aren't not independent. 2 is. The first nine references aren't that cool either, apart from two. If it is draftified it will need a considerable rewrite. scope_creep Talk 09:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify - clearly does not meet mainspace standards of quality or referencing. Onel5969 TT me 13:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Advice, please: Can anyone advise one of the involved editors, Studentsunion ( talk · contribs)? They've left a message on my talk page and I've suggested they post a message here. Thanks. Esowteric+ Talk 16:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Responding to useful chain aboveDear all, thank you very much for sharing your useful comments. I am sorry, but I believe I must clarify, I am not even sure whether this is the right way to respond to your comments so where pointed out that the team and I are not well versed in making or editing Wikipedia pages, this is true. At the Students Union, we are a group of sabbatical officers, employed staff, and other members who are UCL alumni i.e recent graduates. As a Union of the University College London (UCL), we maintain access to all student records including general personal information. You can verify this across the internet or by calling UCL. We ensure consent from the student in publicising their information, even when not already publicised. As we are a team of over 32 people, almost all of whom maintain access to our social media, wikipedia log in's and so on, it is very much possible that conflicting edits were made but this was all solely to try to improve our content. Where there have been immature edits, we can only apologise. We all work from the same place and hence the same IP address so that is not surprising. We have noted all the comments above and to add to a list of verifiable and notability, UCL has various webpages that share her achievements over time. As a mere student representative at the House of Lords (and not actually a Baroness or permanent member), she is not enlisted on the HoL websites but is a confirmed and current representative. Our team is also very much careful in promoting our best students and members and ensure reliability as we cannot suffer backlash in representing incorrect or inappropriate information. In places where we have used direct quotes from her, we feel they added a face and value to her activism and how she successfully led to the UK Parliament declaring the climate emergency. All quotes are available on publicly available podcasts - perhaps even a quick google search will help. Again, I must say that edits have been made by different team members at different points and unfortunately no one has kept track. We do not have a system for accountability yet but lesson learned. As pointed out, various news channels have covered her work. She has been invited and involved with Cambridge and Oxford University too. I am continually discussing the above chain in my group chat with colleagues and we are looking to inform the subject itself too. However, we remain confused, where is the "net worth" or her brother's page? In any case, all your edits are most welcome. It is a bit hard to keep track of all the Wikipedia guidelines and standards, so does anyone have a suggested manuscript? We can work on the edits immediately to ensure we address (and hopefully avoid) the deletion nomination. Esowteric, especially thank you for advising us and we look forward to improving this. Could anyone confirm the next step please? Thank you so very much to all of you again for the useful discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Responding to useful chain above Forgot to address one thing, our team can confirm that KGS is Karachi Grammar School as per our records and her school too participated in the Wikipedia page production. I am told one of our ex-colleagues has had a call with the school about this too. This is not paid editing as the SU is non-for-profit and solely for the students' interests. Hope this helps! Would it help if we provided more links to share her work perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Addressing the deletion nominationDear all, we originally left a message on Esowteric's talk page who kindly informed us to discuss here. Just for the sake of updating (and apologies if we fail to understand how Wikipedia/talk pages work). We have stated recently:

"Dear Esowteric,

We are the Students Union at UCL. We are thankful for your time to leave some useful comments on one of our page's i.e Aliza Ayaz. We have just noticed them and will be working to improve them, although the team is a bit confused and unsure about how best improve the page. I notice the page say's "nominated for deletion". Is there any you could please consider not nominating for deletion? We would have to make the page from scratch and can verify that it is genuine. We are more than happy to organise Teams or Zoom calls with one or two of our team members to discuss this. We promise to try our best to work on this but are a little overwhelmed with other commitments at the SU. Could we please have some time to work on this - the current notices that appear on the page could be embarrassing for the university's image and the Students Union specific team members. If you could perhaps help us improve, we welcome absolutely any suggestions and changes as well. We would just request some kind guidance and help please. Thank you very much.

___ "We want to take this as a learning lesson for our work as we plan to create pages for some of our other notable staff too. We also want to avoid the page being deleted as it was a lot of hard work for some of us collating all the information. We apologise very much for failing to meet standards but hope to edit rigorously and ensure editors do not have an issue. We also remain confused about some aspects re: some information about net worth which isn't actually in the article? also re: are we not allowed to disclose how many siblings she has? One of our team members has confirmed adding this information as it is on student records and also widely known amongst the academic, student and professional community here and didn't think there would be any harm in adding. We are now also working on strictly monitoring who makes edits as it appears that someone may have made edits as a joke or personal attack, although we cannot confirm this. We apologise for the inconvenience and look forward to working together with all editors. We thank you very much for your time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Studentsunion, 1) You have a conflict of interest if you are writing about a former or current member of your association. The tags for COI will have to remain until the article has been neutralized for tone by editors not connected to the subject. This would need to be disclosed by anyone who is connected to the union, the schools, or the organizations the subject has worked with. 2) Your username needs to be changed as it represents an organization. Only ONE person can use a particular Wikipedia account. 3) For the purposes of this AFD, you need to provide external news articles that cover the subject, not ones from the organization or associated with the organization. 4) If you are trying to add personal information about the subject, you will need to reference an external news source, and not private student records. 5) Whether the information about the subject is embarrassing or not should not matter; the article needs to be objective. See WP:PROUD But first, it needs to pass notability. 6) If you want more time to work on the article as a draft, then you can ask for it to go back to the Draft status. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Addressing AngusWOOF Thank you so very much for your helpful contribution. We will work on these over the course of next few weeks as we are a bit overwhelmed. 1. How may one change this page back to a draft status? 2. Where may we find an editor who may edit the page "neutrally" as per your first point? If any one of you is able to do so, we would very much appreciate any help. Happy to coordinate and work on edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Changes made to maintain page/avoid deletion Have added multiple more references to help out the issue of referencing and uncited claims. :) WUF, UN, UK Parliament and Bloomsbury Festival amongst other independent sources should hopefully confirm notability. Can also be verified by independently contacting the UK Parliament, The Guardian or University College London perhaps. Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Please sign your comments by using four tildes ~~~~ at the end. That will auto-generate your user signature. If you could get someone other than Aliza Ayaz to write a Guardian article, that would greatly help with notability. Esowteric+ Talk 08:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • As a " a Union of the University College London (UCL), we maintain access to all student records including general personal information.... We ensure consent from the student in publicising their information, even when not already publicise" you would do better not to write articles about the alumni of your own college, tho it is not prohibited. If you do, you should be scrupulously careful, going thru AfC, declaring your conflict of interest, and being certain there are excellent references. You should be especially careful in writing article on those associated with your Union.-- that is a close enough relationship that you MUST declar the coi, and my advice would be to write about almost anything else. If a person connected with the union is notable, someone without COI will know about them and write the article. I personally do not consider it paid editing in the narrow sense I think we should use for it, but others here think it's so close as to make little difference. It it is certainly editing with a very strong COI. Experience shows it is close to impossible to write NPOV article about people closely associated with oneself--hence the strictures.
There is another problem: we permit editing only by individuals, not groups. Some individual people need to take the responsibility. If you are team writing such article, you are going about it wrong. If your " team is also very much careful in promoting our best students and members " everything written by them needs very strict scrutiny. This is exactly the type of editing COI was designed to prevent, and do not be surprised if other articles from the same origin are listed for deletion. Direct paid coi is often considered a reason for deletion; enthusiastic fans and alumni come very close to that. Looked at from another perspective, you are doing your notable alumni no favor in trying to write articles about them--quite the reverse. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Draftify with the proviso it goes through AfC before moving to mainspace - I hesitate to form an opinion over notability as what is written in the text is often not backed up by the references. For example in the section "Awards and nominations", only two of the five references confirm she has won the award. Normal practice where there is a WP:COI is that the article is written in draft and has to go through the WP:AfC process. The article may be salvageable, but it shouldn't be in mainspace as it is. -- John B123 ( talk) 20:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks, John B123. I've addressed the issue with awards, together with a number of other issues. Esowteric+ Talk 12:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

COI editing by AfD nominator: Might I please ask the nominator of this ongoing AfD not to make any more potentially tendentious edits to Aliza Ayaz that undermine the subject's notability (for example, through the removal of two reliable references and the selective reinstatement of just one), and to also refrain from reverting my addition of wikilinks in the List of British Pakistanis and a wikilink and content about the subject at Rare FM? Above all, this raises ethical questions about a conflict of interest and of propriety. Furthermore, I have been accused of having a "COI on Aliza Ayaz based on the number of edits performed" by AngusMEOW in both this AfD and at the sockpuppet investigation of Az.jooma. I have no links to the subject or to any of the other editors or suspected sockpuppets. Stand down, Trooper! Thank you. Esowteric+ Talk 07:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply

"The following is a list of notable British Pakistanis, namely notable citizens or residents of the United Kingdom whose ethnic origins lie in Pakistan". Maybe I misinterpreted the list requirements? Esowteric+ Talk 08:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • One of the AfDed Aliza Ayaz diffs — diffB2
  • One of the list diffs — diffB3
  • One of the Rare FM diffs (All I did was add the wikilink) — diffB4.
Note that Angus1986 recently changed their username to AngusMEOW and then to QuantumUniverse. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:56, 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 draftify to Draft:Mian Banda. ‑Scottywong | [communicate] || 03:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Mian Banda

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

This page does not meet GNG, which it must as a populated place without legal recognition. If anything it should be merged with Timergara, but there isn't a whole lot to merge. Trevey-On-Sea ( talk) 21:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC) reply
What makes the nominator think that this village has no legal recognition? A click on the word "books" above shows that it is recognised by censuses. Phil Bridger ( talk) 14:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Census tracts are not usually considered notable Trevey-On-Sea ( talk) 05:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
A village is not a census tract. Phil Bridger ( talk) 07:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Terrible excuse for an article, but does appear to be a recognised village. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • leaning delete There is certainly a Mian Banda in Pakistan, but I'm not the least convinced that it's anything like the place being talked about in this article. One set of references implies that it is on a substantial river; a news report recounts an address given at a seminary there with a name drop implying that everyone in Pakistan knows where it is. Meanwhile I get a clickbait mapper which locates it at a cluster of a 3-4 houses wedged at the end of a valley, clearly not consonant with the textual accounts. If someone could actually read the 1999 census it would help a good deal, but at the moment, given the sourcing and inconsistencies, I just cannot believe the text that we have now, and would suggest that starting over would be better than trying to work with what's there now. Mangoe ( talk) 14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • This appears to be a very poor latinization of a Pakistani language word. I can't find anything around Timegara that resembles this name so I'm leaning towards delete without prejudice for recreation if this turns out to be a legitimate population center. Oakshade ( talk) 21:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Changed to neutral based on Timothy's research below. If we could determine which population center this is for certain, then I'd say keep. Oakshade ( talk) 02:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Draftify (changed vote, see below): I found a census that records two places with this name in LOWER DIR DISTRICT here)) ). I'm not sure which one it is, I think its the one with 2564 population, (the other has 133 people) I think this accounts for Mangoe discovery above. But whichever it is, it is a populated legally recognized place and appears to meet GEOLAND   //  Timothy ::  talk  01:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Changed my vote to Draftify. Mackensen is right, if we're not sure what place it's referring to, then its not ready for mainspace. BD2412 I think has the right compromise, if it can't be developed, it will be deleted, but it will have a chance to develop if possible.   //  Timothy ::  talk  02:02, 25 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 University of Warsaw. Tone 18:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University of Warsaw

Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University of Warsaw (  | 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 PRODed it with "he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." The author removed the PRO and asked for more time to expand it. The article has been expanded, yes, but I am afraid like most faculties it is still non-notable, sourced to PRIMARY sources and mentions in passing. PS. Considering the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Management of the University of Warsaw and the COI by at least one author, I do wonder if the University of Warsaw isn't trying some ill-thought promotion on Wikipedia? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 11:47, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Fernanda Lara

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

This musician doesn't seem notable. The only source in the article is to a basic Discogs listing and I couldn't find multiple, or any, in-depth reviews of her music anywhere. She doesn't even have an AllMusic listing. Supposedly she was nominated for or won (I can't really tell because they aren't sourced) some awards, but it looks they are for weird things like "best music website" and an award from a local city hall. Neither of which would qualify as notable. Even if there were references to back them up. So, there's nothing about her from what I can find that passes either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Adamant1 ( talk) 13:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not seem notable alright. Google results are the usual trash like social media, youtube, streaming links, the Discogs page, and lyrics sites. Most of the results are about different people with this name (?). I have seen the Portuguese article has some sources cited, but since I don't speak Portuguese I can't evaluate them. ( Google results) GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 13:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 11:43, 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 merge to Banpresto. As a mention, as proposed below. Sandstein 20:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Super Hero Operations

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

Obscure Japanese video game that doesn't meet WP:N. Outside a single review from Famitsu, I have had no luck with finding any kind of coverage of this game from reliable sources. Namcokid 47 (Contribs) 20:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge & Redirect to Banpresto - And by merge, I simply mean adding it to their list of games, as it is not currently listed there, and thus would need to be in order to have a Redirect make sense. The equivalent page on the Japanese Wikipedia is considerably longer, but doing a quick google translate shows that this is simply because it does an extensive plot summary/game guide on every character in the game. It does not actually cite any coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability, as the only one of the listed sources that is not a fansource is simply the game's strategy guide. I would imagine that the game was very likely reviewed in Japanese gaming magazines at the time, but until that coverage is actually located and integrated into the article, there is no actual reliably sourced material here, and thus we really can not keep the page as a stand alone article for now. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 11:35, 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 12:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2016 United Arab Emirates Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament

AfDs for this article:
2016 United Arab Emirates Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament (  | 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 would find this difficult how this article could pass WP:GNG with most of the other under-19 tri tournaments also be deleted. HawkAussie ( talk) 11:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 11:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 11:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 11:30, 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 Speedy delete. As per WP:G4 criteria by Woody (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 10:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2023 Formula One World Championship

AfDs for this article:
2023 Formula One World Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. All the sources in this article pertain to contracts. However, none of these contracts are new to 2023 (i.e. contracts also apply to 2022). A google search shows a complete absense of 2023 related sources. Only a couple about Verstappen's contract from 2020-2023 and speculation about a Grand Prix in Saudi Arabia.

There are insufficent sources for the 2023 season to be independantly notable at this time. I don't see that anything has changed since the last deletion discussion. Arguably WP:CSD#G4 could apply.
SSSB ( talk) 11:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per SSSB, there is virtually no content on the page and aside from contracts the 2023 season has effectively zero coverage.
5225C ( talk • contributions) 11:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:24, 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 speedy delete. WP:A7 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

FilmFuture

FilmFuture (  | 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 website which was launched this month generally fails to satisfy WP:NWEB & doesn’t satisfy either criterion from WP:WEBCRIT. Celestina007 11:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 11:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 11:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 11:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 11:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 11:09, 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. Tone 18:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

MyNation Hope Foundation

AfDs for this article:
MyNation Hope Foundation (  | 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 see if this article is fundamentally the same as the one deleted two years ago, but I notice that no new reliable independent sources have been added, so the same issues remain: lack of notability as indicated by a lack of such sources. Fram ( talk) 11:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 11:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham ( talk) 11:08, 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. No prejudice against creating an appropriate redirect. Mojo Hand ( talk) 15:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Achasta Golf Club

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

Not notable sports venue. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 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 merge to Thamidapadu. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Madhavanagar

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

As per the district census book of Nellore (on Page No. 193), the name of the village is Thamidapadu, there is no sign of Madhavanagar in the book. As the the first line of the article reads , it is a sub-village. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Nominated after PROD was removed. Zoodino ( talk) 10:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino ( talk) 10:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:37, 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.  JGHowes  talk 22:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

YAD06

YAD06 (  | 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 as lacks reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage which address the nominal topic directly and in detail. Of the two cited sources, Pearce quotes a blog comment about the tree but gives no further detail about it, Mann's book makes no mention of this specific tree. It's a minor part of controversy covered in the hockey stick graph article, and might be merged into that article, subject to care to avoid giving undue weight to one specific claim. dave souza, talk 10:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – think that redirect would go against WP:R#ASTONISH as it will give this tree name undue weight if it's given any mention in the hockey stick graph article. A better redirect would be to Steve McIntyre as he brought the name "YAD06" to public attention, and if the name [and specific controversy] is to be explained that would have more appropriate weight in his biography. Not convinced there's a need for a redirect. . . dave souza, talk 10:59, 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 keep. Tone 18:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Kalka–Barmer Express

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

WP:NOTTRAVEL, The article is about a general train. Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Nominating after PROD removed. Zoodino ( talk) 10:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Zoodino ( talk) 10:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino ( talk) 10:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm at a loss to work out why this express service (not train) is any less notable than any of the other 1,037 articles in Category:Express trains in India. It makes no sense whatsoever to delete individual articles piecemeal like this. Either all of them are notable or none (or almost none) of them are. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Category Category:Express trains in India has 20 sub categories and 1038 entries, most of which are either very close to this page's format or exactly like this page. I sampled 20 Express trains from this category at random, they are no different from this page. There are recent notability discussions on Named trains in India. I suspect the notability discussions will evolve on the talk pages to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian railways to including Express Passenger trains in India, all of which have nameboards on the Guard's Van. Deleting this will only open 1038 cans of worms. We need to evolve the notability on Indian Railways and their Express services.   -- Whiteguru ( talk) 10:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Its an important article in the indian railways train service series. It shouldn't be deleted for this reasons ive found more references on that from finding on google for launching and incident news etc. Feroze Ahmad 2 ( talk) 14:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are roughly 1500 articles on specific Indian trains. This being a long-distance Express train falls right in the criteria of majority of them. While I do agree that WP:Other stuff exists should not be applied for only a handful of examples, when there are 1500+ examples and most of them for many years, it makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roller26 ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Until a comprehensive discussion takes place. Named trains and long-distance trains of India do get news coverage during flag off, route diversion etc. Verifiability also does not seem to be an issue here. -- Ab207 ( talk) 16:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per the above. No reason to kill this article. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is an WP:RUNOFTHEMILL unnamed train, where the "name" is basically just "[Where train starts]-[Where train ends] Express". Most of these types of articles were only made by a few editors, which isn't consensus. While named trains can be notable, this typically isn't true for unnamed ones. We don't create articles for the hourly service between London Waterloo and Poole or the daily Jinan to Kunming service, which are both also unnamed. If we do write about them, it's generally on their parent railway line or company, not in a new article. A search on Google News only gave result about an attempt to derail the train, but the rest is WP:ROUTINE coverage about train delays and cancellations. Jumpytoo Talk 21:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A major service linking multiple major Indian cities. Oakshade ( talk) 04:33, 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 18:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Chompoonut Phungphon

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

Biographical stub for a regional beauty pageant winner, but without any references that we can use to verify notability. Salimfadhley ( talk) 09:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:21, 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. Fenix down ( talk) 06:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification

Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although the situation that led to Liverpool still having to qualify for the 2005–06 Champions League despite being the reigning champions is fairly interesting, the encyclopaedic value of this article is very niche and would probably be considered WP:FANCRUFT. The entire situation could be adequately described in a couple of sentences at 2005–06 Liverpool F.C. season and 2005–06 UEFA Champions League and doesn't require an in-depth study of how UEFA modified its qualification rules to manage circumstances like this. – Pee Jay 09:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:09, 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. Can be redirected separately if desired. Sandstein 11:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2020 United Arab Emirates explosions

2020 United Arab Emirates explosions (  | 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:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage of the incident benefited from the recent Beirut explosion and the fact that fatalities involved foreigners. However this pale in comparison with the historic Lebanon explosion. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 12:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 12:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:21, 2 September 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, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Aloyse Neu

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

He competed twice in the Chess Olympiad, but since any country can send a team without preliminary qualifications, this isn't a truly remarkable achievement for small or less chess-impressive countries like Luxembourg.

I can't find any reliable, independent sources about him (except databases and passing mentions), which means he fails WP:BIO. Fram ( talk) 13:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 13:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 13:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I create this article according Notability_of_chess_players:

3. Has won a national or continental championship or women's championship.

Aloyse Neu twice won national championship - Luxembourg Chess Championship (1954, 1959).-- Uldis s ( talk) 13:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

These project-written pages are not generally accepted notability guidelines, and this is an example of why not. Fram ( talk) 14:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Any reasonable interpretation of chess notability guidelines would ignore "national" championships in truly minor countries. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as he arguably meets WP:ANYBIO #1 if you regard twice winning a national championship as a significant honour. There doesn't seem to be much coverage online outside of raw databases but that does not mean that offline sources do not exist in chess periodicals of the time. It may be possible to expand the article in the future if these sources are found. P-K3 ( talk) 12:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • No, I don't regard winning a national championship in a very small country (or in a minor sport in a bigger country for that matter) a "significant honour" in itself. The article can be recreated if and when these potential sources are found, but keeping an article because sources may or may not exist is basically throwing WP:N out of the window.
    • To be precise, ANYBIO calls for "a well-known and significant award or honor": I don't think that "the national chess champion of Luxembourg" can be claimed to be such a "well-known and significant honor" (unlike e.g. a Victoria Cross, an Olympic title, ...) Fram ( talk) 12:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Since there is no qualifying for the Olympics, merely competing in it does not seem to be that big a deal, especially when representing a small country. For example, at the last chess olympiad there were 185 registered teams in the Open division and 151 in the Women's section with a total of almost 1700 participants. Neu's record at international team competitions appears to have been 1 win, 4 draws, and 23 losses which would seem to indicate he was not among the top tier of competitors. In addition, there is no supporting evidence to show that there is sufficient significant independent coverage to show notability. Chess databases aren't enough. I don't think being a two time champion of Luxembourg is sufficient to grant automatic notability. Papaursa ( talk) 03:58, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

It Just Gets Worse

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

An album lacking in reliable sources coverage. The only review I could find in reliable sources was the AllMusic one already in the article - there is a review at Sputnik Music but it is by a user not by staff. (Also beware that on google there is a Sputnik Music link that contains adware). The album is already covered in more depth on the band page particularly in the lyrics section. I had redirected it there but the redirect has been contested so bringing it here. Please be advised that the tracklist is offensive and searching with the band name will include unsavoury results. Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply
It wasn't nominated for deletion because it is offensive, but because it is largely unknown and never covered by reliable music media, except briefly by AllMusic. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 21:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable album. Only reliable source I found the Allmusic review. (Interestingly the biography page of the band itself is blank.) I have also found the Sputnikmusic review but it was written by a user. I have also found a Metal Storm review but it was written by a user as well. The rest of the results are the standard trash sites like Metal Archives, Discogs, Rate Your Music, Amazon, eBay, Spotify, etc, etc. The sites cited by Superastig are blogs/webzines, I have doubts about their notability. AxCx were offensive but that was part of the joke. Their song titles and presentation always crack me up. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 15:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 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 12:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Katie Larmour

Katie Larmour (  | 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 have found 3 sources that can be cosidered reliable, however it's the same local newspaper and the coverage is rather tabloid. 1, 2 and 3 - this one is an interview. However this is a far cry from what notability guidelines require. Other then these there is no coverage (user generated excluded). The subject fails WP:GNG. Less Unless ( talk) 08:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Less Unless ( talk) 08:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Less Unless ( talk) 08:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Less Unless ( talk) 08:34, 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. Fenix down ( talk) 06:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2014–15 BFC Siófok season

2014–15 BFC Siófok season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of these articles should ever have been created in the first place as the league is semi-pro. All fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS.

2014–15 Soproni VSE season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Soroksár SC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Szeged 2011 season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Szigetszentmiklósi TK season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Szolnoki MÁV FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Vasas SC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Zalaegerszegi TE season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Spiderone 08:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:20, 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. Fenix down ( talk) 06:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2014–15 FC Ajka season

2014–15 FC Ajka season (  | 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 articles are incomplete, however, the real issue is that they all fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS as the second tier in Hungary is semi-pro.


2014–15 Balmazújvárosi FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Békéscsaba 1912 Előre SE season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Ceglédi VSE season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Csákvári TK season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Gyirmót SE season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Kaposvári Rákóczi FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Mezőkövesdi SE season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Spiderone 08:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:19, 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. Fenix down ( talk) 06:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2018–19 Orapa United F.C. season

2018–19 Orapa United F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus is that Botswana's teams are semi-pro or amateur so WP:NSEASONS isn't met. I can't see WP:GNG either as, even in the better articles, the coverage is only routine match reports.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

2019–20 Orapa United F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018–19 Jwaneng Galaxy FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019–20 Jwaneng Galaxy FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019–20 Gaborone United SC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019–20 Township Rollers FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018–19 Township Rollers FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


Spiderone 07:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:47, 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 Draftify. Some say that "an article being in poor shape is not reason for deletion" - but that doesn't exclude draftification, as consensus here determines. Any recreation should, given the concerns here, go through AfC or a consensus-based process. Sandstein 11:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Native Americans and horses

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

This article is such a mess the only solution is WP: TNT. The concept is notable, but this one is poorly written, poorly sourced, has a staggering amount of inaccuracies and undue weighting, and so on. In some cases it perpetuates stereotypes about Native people and has any number of other cringe-worthy elements. Montanabw (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Montanabw (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Montanabw (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Montanabw (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉( talk) 15:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify: This is a new user, and this is his/her only article thus far. It is also cringeworthy as per nom, and needs a professional editing eye sprayed over it with lots of guidance to this user. This is not the place for perorations on good essay writing, but this is what this article needs.   -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree that this is full of inaccuracies and awkward simplifications, and needs to be rewritten. However, this is a production from a WikiEd course that has finished, and as is frequently the case with these courses, the author has not edited before or since and is unlikely to do so again. If the article was draftified, it would probably sit in draft for 6 months and then be soft-deleted. So if we want to get usable material out of this, that is not the way. And the topic per se is valid and well-documented, to the extent that I'm surprised we don't have a relevant separate article yet. Montanabw, you have an overview in these matters - are you sure this is not already covered elsewhere? Aren't there any good merge targets? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Add: there's Plains_Indians#The_horse, which covers a good chunk of this. Maybe merge there? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Reply The material in it at present is virtually all about the Plains tribes, so @ Elmidae: it could be merged there, yes. Montanabw (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep This nomination is not policy-based and is contrary to numerous policies including WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:OWN; WP:POINT;&c. I could list lots of sources but this is not necessary as the article already has a reasonable selection. Andrew🐉( talk) 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    Aaand here comes the bullshit. One wonders if it will take another decade before Andrew learns that notability, or availiability of sources, are not the only keep/delete criteria (no one has even hinted in that direction in this case); that horking out links to half a dozen vaguely connected policies is not Making An Argument; and that accusations of WP:OWN and WP:POINT require some smidgen of proof. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    Oh, and AfD nominations are violations of WP:BITE now? Am I dreaming? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    One just has to read these policies to understand their relevance. I could explain them all at length but that would take some time and my primary point is that this nomination is so egregiously bad that it should be closed forthwith. Andrew🐉( talk) 15:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    This is ineligible for speedy keeping since none of the reasons at WP:SKCRIT are met. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 15:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    The nomination "fails to advance any argument for deletion". It makes some vague complaints but fails to address the key point of our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." The topic is clearly quite notable and the nomination admits this. There is therefore no obstacle to improvement in situ and no pressing reason to delete such as BLP is given. This is the worst nomination I've seen since this one which started in a similar way, "Ugh, this is a mess...". Andrew🐉( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    No, the nominator gave a clear rationale for deleting. You may think it's a bad rationale, but that's not enough for a speedy keep. Speedy keeps are for nominations along the lines of "this is stoopid lulz", not for someone citing a well-trodden essay and who's claiming an article has major, unfixable flaws. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    No, the valid reasons for deletion are listed at WP:DEL-REASON and WP:TNT isn't in the list, not even close. The nomination is essentially WP:RUBBISH, which is an argument to avoid. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    Just so nobody is deceived, WP:DEL-REASON isn't an exhaustive list (it says so right at the top). If people are going to wikilawyer about policies, they perhaps shouldn't misrepresent what's actually stated there. Reyk YO! 12:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    Good grief, first off, if you need policy, then among other things, it's a Fork from other articles on the Plains Indians and various tribes within that tradition, as noted below. But more to the point, others are suggesting good ATDs, which is one outcome to an AfD nomination, and I think there are good suggestions being discussed. As noted below, TNT is a valid rationale when "an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from. When that point is reached, deletion provides a reset, and give editors a clean slate." At any rate, this particular article is of low quality and what is duplicative can be moved into other articles. I thought about just boldly blanking it and redirecting it to the horse section of Plains Indian article, but thought that would be even more "bitey" than putting it up for discussion here to see what consensus arises. Montanabw (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify as things currently stand. I suspect a really good article could be written about this topic (has anyone checked to make sure we don't have anything at a different title?), but this is of such low quality that it's inappropriate to keep in mainspace. I certainly echo Elmidae's concerns about getting lost there, and I would encourage notes left at any WikiProjects that might be interested. Another reasonable option would be to cut this down to a stub and keep in mainspace; that would even better than what's here now. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 15:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I have made more than one search for an existing page. The closest I found was Horses in the United States. That has something to say about native Americans but suggesting that they are or were exclusive and subsidiary subjects of the United States would be somewhat controversial and so it would be better to cover them separately, as is done here. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
(as added above) There's also Plains_Indians#The_horse, which has more substantial overlap. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve or draftify - This article was written by a student editor as a Wiki Edu Foundation-supported assignment. It needs a lot of work, but that is not a reason to delete. The subject is obviously notable. Netherzone ( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I made some improvements to the article. Ample sources already listed in the article. Here is a link for those super lazy. Native_Americans_and_horses#References Obviously the relationship between native Americans and horses is quite notable, it brought about massive change. Dream Focus 16:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    The problem is that this is someone’s term paper, and I’d give it a “C” at best. The creator fou d sources, but misunderstood what the sources said, uses them out of context, put undue weight on certain tribal groups, and added a ton of unsourced commentary. I just now went through it, deleted the worst bits, and tagged a bunch of the problems if someone really wants to fix things. Montanabw (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify/Merge This could be a reasonable concept to have an article on, but still far too much is unsourced, or are quite generic statements about the use of horses that can apply to any culture beyond Native Americans lumped together. Per Elmidae, Plains_Indians#The_horse is a suitable place for this topic, and it would be best merged there, then split as reasonable. Reywas92 Talk 18:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Nominator supports draftification or merge this article needs WEEKS of work to fix. I would support moving it back to draft space, and then removing most of the inaccurate and cringeworthy material. Yes, there are sources, but even the sources need to be assessed critically and in context. I suppose TNT was a pretty drastic suggestion, but getting it out of mainspace (and searches) and into draft space is a good solution Montanabw (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Dream Focus, I don’t oppose removing all the junk and reducing it to a much shorter article, or merging into the Plains Indians article’s horse section. I kind of tag-bombed all the problems, and they aren’t easily fixable just by adding a citation to what is already badly-written and poorly understood material, so the content so tagged should be removed until it can be rewritten. I did ping the Equine and Indigenous people Wikiprojects. Montanabw (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
As Montanabw pointed out, most the statements made in Native Americans and horses are factually incorrect and offensively stereotypical. It's mainly gross generations pertaining only to Great Plain tribes during a particular historical period, that is covered by the Horse culture article, which of course would be larger if we expanded it. Yuchitown ( talk) 21:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown reply
Horse culture. Yuchitown ( talk)Yuchitown
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 12:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Factor 42

Factor 42 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Drome. Exactly the same applies here - it's essentially the same people, and the same poor sources with no real coverage. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 06:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:49, 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. Tone 06:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Chardonnay (name)

Chardonnay (name) (  | 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 name, no one notable on WP with this name. We are not an import of The great big book of baby names Reywas92 Talk 06:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:22, 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 speedy deleted, salted. Re-affirming prior deletion. Non-notable. Unambiguous WP:BLP violation. El_C 02:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Punta Gorda bus fight

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

This article already deleted under A7 Looplips ( talk) 04:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

​

  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The nominator agreed yesterday to stop nominating articles for CSD and AfD. He agreed he did not have enough experience. So something needs to be done. A school bus fight in 2005 is not news unless it has further consequences for the participants or the community concerned.   -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    Whiteguru, The nominator didn't even provide a valid deletion rationale in this case (that previous iterations were deleted (for whatever reason) doesn't explain why this one should be). If it wasn't for the subsequent participation of others, this would have been eligible for speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Not withstanding how this was nominated, the way the page creator is trying to influence a keep (and the sockpuppetry demonstrated below) pretty well disqualifies this from a SK1 at this point. Nate • ( chatter) 02:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep THIS IS NOTABLE! I’m trying to introduce the bus fight to Wikipedia. I’ve included sources, including from MSNBC and CNN. This is unfair. Instead of trying to delete the article, maybe work on it more. I vote keep again. — PuntaGorda1 ( talk) 16:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User:PuntaGorda1 has voted twice, so I've struck through their second vote. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 16:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There are sources covering the fight. It's even covered by CNN and MSNBC (as shown in the video by Contessa Brewer). I've included sources. This one is a good example. It talks about how it overdramatize the news. Another good example is this one. which shows other school violence incidents during the 2004 - 2005 school year. It proves that those two boys attended Punta Gorda Middle School. There is time to save this article before it gets deleted. -- PuntaGorda1 ( talk) 18:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment These two "boys" are about to be in their 30s in the next year or so. Kids get into trouble all the time, and this should not permanently memorialized on Wikipedia! Please read WP:BLP about why we aren't going to keep this. Nate • ( chatter) 20:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Comment We could educate readers and Wikipedians about what happened that day @ Mrschimpf:. That’s why this article was created. (redacted link to a mugshot. Nate • ( chatter) 21:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)) — PuntaGorda1 ( talk) 21:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Please. Stop. Now! And immediately read WP:BLP. I don't know if you're out to ruin the lives of these people, but we are not going to link to anything that violates BLP. This entire article is a BLP violation and needs to go. Nate • ( chatter) 21:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
          • There is the article AC Transit Bus fight @ Mrschimpf:. If the AC Transit Bus fight can have a article, so can the Punta Gorda bus fight. This article can stay and improvements can be made to the article before it gets deleted. We can give the Punta Gorda bus fight article a chance. There is time to save the article from deletion. Copyediting would be a good start. If no improvements can be made, it can be deleted. -- PuntaGorda1 ( talk) 01:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
            • All of the charges involved with this incident have either been dropped, or long expired. I repeat again; WP:BLP is a serious matter. You have actually redirected the names of the subjects involved to this article, which I am asking for speedy deletion on. This had no long term effect on the city of Punta Gorda, its school system, or Charlotte County, Florida. No case law was established because of this incident. The latter link should be deleted too, but it at least pushed out a Hollywood film, so I have no cause to delete that myself. Stop ceasing on continuing to push this story. Nate • ( chatter) 01:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- fundamentally unencyclopedic. Reyk YO! 19:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not important, sources don't show sustained coverage. Creator is likely a sock and is definitely spamming other articles with WP:UNDUE content about this. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is very notable. Details and accurate sources were provided. If AC Transit Bus fight can have an article, so can the Punta Gorda bus fight. The Punta Gorda bus fight received coverage on CNN, MSNBC, and NBC. There even is a video from MSNBC's Contessa Brewer regarding the fight. We can educate readers and Wikipedians about the bus fight that occurred in 2005. This article should definitely be kept. -- PuntaGorda1 (alt) ( talk) 01:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Would be surprised if account isn't blocked by now for not being competent of the policies here. – The Grid ( talk) 02:31, 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 06:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Sellicks Springs, California

Sellicks Springs, California (  | 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 fourth in a set of "springs" entered as settlements from Durham that by all other evidence is actually a spring. GNIS didn't know about this one, which is a little surprising given its size, but I did find a map whose key gave its location. Other than that, I get exactly the data I find on every other spring in the state. Mangoe ( talk) 03:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:48, 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. Tone 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Linked Lakes

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

Not a notable company. BroadbandNow is a directory site that isn't sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. I can't find anything else on Google. From their own (very bare-bones) website, there is a banned Twitter profile and a LinkedIn profile that says the company was founded last year. I'm slightly concerned the company doesn't exist in any meaningful way. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

BroadbandNow pulls coverage maps from FCC Form 477. — CardFume ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I completely understand that, but they have to legally file a Form 477 through the FCC to be listed on BroadbandNow - CardFume ( talk) 02:57, 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 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Miller, California

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

Mistakenly called a community on the basis of the unreliable GNIS database. The name appeared on the 1914 USGS topo map but has since disappeared. Durhams calls it a locality on the Northwestern Pacific RR named after a nearby rancher. No other evidence that this was ever a community and no indication that it is otherwise notable Glendoremus ( talk) 03:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus ( talk) 03:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus ( talk) 03:50, 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. Tone 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Secret Springs, California

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

Another "it's actually really a spring" case. The only mentions of this that say anything about it so describe it, and nobody claims it to be a town. I cannot get a definite location for it, nor anything but the barest mention of it, so I do not think it a notable landform. Mangoe ( talk) 03:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:50, 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. czar 05:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Centro Panamericano de Investigación e Innovación

Centro Panamericano de Investigación e Innovación (  | 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 more than 10 Years old and there is not much in the internet about it. https://cepii.wordpress.com is the internet presence of the centre. The other pages mentioning it, are mostly mainly mentioning it or a copy/translation of the wikipedia article Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 03:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG. The Banner  talk 18:42, 17 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 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Children's Paradise School

Children's Paradise School (  | 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:NORG. There are no detailed references or even government stats pages to be found on this school. 0 hits on gbooks, only passing mentions on gnews John from Idegon ( talk) 02:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:52, 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 keep. Tone 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Boris Petrovitch Njegosh

Boris Petrovitch Njegosh (  | 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 supposed heir to a pretender is not necessarily notable, we don't know that he will keep up the claim. PatGallacher ( talk) 01:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:51, 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 keep. North America 1000 05:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Bernhard, Hereditary Prince of Baden

Bernhard, Hereditary Prince of Baden (  | 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, mostly routine genealogy. PatGallacher ( talk) 00:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Changed to Keep as shown by DWC LR easily passes WP:GNG. VocalIndia ( talk) 10:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Bernhard, Hereditary Prince of Baden:
- Hereditary Prince of Baden and thus heir to the headship of the house of Baden and the titles of Margrave of Baden, Duke of Zähringen.
- Estate manager.
- Manager of the margravine wineries.
- Key participant in the negotiations with the German Federal Republic about transfering a number of assest historically owned by the grand ducal family to the German State.
- judging from the illustration to the article a participant in various local events in Baden-Württemberg. Oleryhlolsson ( talk) 22:26, 16 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) 02:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Mane Magalu

Mane Magalu (  | 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 to support it's notability claim in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, youtube videos and the one review already mentioned. DEPRODed for "has an online review so there may be more offline", which is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I couldn't find any...maybe with this AfD someone will. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:13, 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) 02:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

C17H19NO3 (musical project)

C17H19NO3 (musical project) (  | 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 band, created by a user who's been cranking out non-notable band pages lately (currently indeffed). Of the five sources, the two AllMusic pages are just track listings, Hands of Ruin and Sonic Boom don't look reliable, and Lollipop Magazine only mentions the band in one or two sentences. Everything else my WP:BEFORE turned up was blogs. Nothing notable here. Hog Farm Bacon 00:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:07, 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.
  1. ^ The Bark Editors. Chinese Gov Proposes to Reclassify Dogs and Ban Dog Meat Trade. April 2020. The Bark. Accessed September 10. 2020.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_September_11&oldid=979919884"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 September 12 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Fist Of Bean

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. This just seems like an ordinary Snickers commercial. I'm finding very little coverage other than a few articles from when the commercial was first released. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 23:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 23:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 23:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 23:53, 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.  JGHowes  talk 22:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Azad Singh Rathore

Azad Singh Rathore (  | 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, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 17:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn ( talk) 17:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Logs: 2016-12 ✗ G11, 2016-12 ✗ PROD, 2016-12 ✗ PROD
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:00, 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Adverse (film)

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

Lacks coverage. No full lenght reviews from reliable sources. sourced to routine announcements. Not a significant award duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
One blog post is not good enough. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is one review enough?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The film passes WP:NFO, which says 'The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.' ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 04:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
What an absolute load of bullshit. Film was released in 2020. So five years from then is 5 years into the future. So where are these claimed future articles that simply do not exist? Please reconnect with reality before commenting. duffbeerforme ( talk) 23:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment duffbeerforme, I suggest you read WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Donaldd23 ( talk) 22:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Are you suggesting that I made a personal attack? What attack. Anyone claiming articles exist in the future needs a reality check. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Leave DENAMAX ( talk) 15:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

*Keep per WP:NFSOURCES; the film has been the primary topic in here, here and here. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 00:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Per NFSOURCES reproductions of PR are not independent. None of those are any good. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Variety has reproduced a PR release. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:13, 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Carl Haglund (real estate)

Carl Haglund (real estate) (  | 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'm ambivalent about the notability of this person, so I'm nominating it for deletion in order to get the community's consensus on it. Haglund has received significant coverage in reliable sources, almost entirely for his legal problems as a local landlord. All of the reliable sources are local: Seattle Times, The Stranger, The News Tribune (Tacoma), Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle Met, South Seattle Emerald, and so on. There is no coverage of Haglund outside of the Seattle metro area.
The coverage spans 5 years, and is mostly about legal problems (example headline: "Accused "Slumlord" Carl Haglund Promises to Improve Building Where Tenants Are Living with Roaches and Rats"). He recently began a non-profit foundation but it has no coverage at all. Even the bits of positive coverage of him refer to him as "notorious Seattle landlord Carl Haglund, after whom a 2016 law dictating new, more stringent building standards was named."
I expect most cities could produce local coverage of local citizens known/notorious for various business dealings. Although editors have added content to keep it from being solely an attack page, I question whether there should be an article at all. So, keep or delete? Schazjmd  (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd  (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd  (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: Also posted at WikiProject Seattle Schazjmd  (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Mr. Haglund meets WP:GNG: there are substantial articles written about him specifically (although none about his property management company or his very young foundation, which should probably be removed from the article) from reliable sources, and the facts about him are verifiable. Haglund is known for his management of older buildings in some generally lower-income neighborhoods of Seattle, so the term slumlord is certainly loaded and non-neutral, but it has been used so many times by notable people and journalists writing for reliable sources that it is, indelibly, connected to him. I agree that he is primarily known in the Seattle metropolitan area, as like most real estate investors, he has concentrated his investments close to him. The amount of press coverage (largely negative, but some positive) given to Haglund is significant compared to most landlords — and indeed compared to most real estate businesspeople. Among the few non-Seattle-region news articles I could find mentioning Haglund is this one from Socialist Alternative, the monthly newspaper printed by Socialist Alternative (United States), a political party: “Notorious Slumlord” Withdraws Lawsuit, a Win for Sawant and the Housing Justice Movement. It casts Haglund as emblematic of exploitative landlords in the context of SA's campaign for housing justice. Haglund is also mentioned in this Jacobin article: “The Society We Are Fighting for Has to Be Free From All Oppression” which is primarily about Councilmember Sawant and the "Carl Haglund law," as she describes it. White 720 ( talk) 03:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per request from nominator
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 06:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In addition to the coverage mentioned above, there is also non-local coverage from Next City, The Washington Post (for those who aren't aware, the Washington in "Washington Post" refers to Washington, D.C., not the state of Washington), and USA Today. In addition, there are a number of non-reliable sources that are not local, which also hints towards notability. Since t local coverage is significant and there is also non-local coverage, he seems sufficiently notable. Gbear605 ( talk) 15:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep reluctantly. This is an edge case that should not be considered generally applicable. The coverage and the article are almost entirely negative but that is what the RS we have available are actually saying. I'm not impressed by some of the advocacy links above (e.g., Jacobin, Next City) but WaPo is certainly a national RS and the article is substantially about Haglund. (Aside: The USA Today source is not since it is a reprint from local news station KING.) Combined with the local coverage, this meets GNG requirements. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • comment I looked at the WaPo article and it's only a brief mention of Haglund in relation to naming the law; the WaPo article is all about the way the Seattle city government can use their new law to force repairs. I don't think that it has any significant coverage of Haglund. Schazjmd  (talk) 00:12, 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Frank_A._Russell

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

Frank A. Russell does not meet Wikipedia's GNG. He has little to no press coverage, most of which comes from unreliable sources. His wikipedia page is basically a resume. This is a good example of unambiguous advertising or promotion. Additionally, the page creator and primary contributor of the page, User:Bencarstens is a SPA whose only contributions are for Frank A. Russell and Geolearning (The company Frank A. Russell works for). Sonstephen0 ( talk) 21:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:58, 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. Tone 08:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Abdus Sobhan Rahat Ali High School

Abdus Sobhan Rahat Ali High School (  | 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 isn't written in neutral point of view. Fails general notability guidelines. ~ Yahya ( ✉) • 21:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~ Yahya ( ✉) • 21:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 21:48, 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. Tone 08:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Cameron Boyd

Cameron Boyd (  | 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 NACTOR. Minor TV roles. Nominated for a children's acting award. The NYT article just lists his name. No in-depth coverage. Not seeing anything here. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:37, 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. I do not find the keep arguments compelling in the face of the mountain of precedent that tells us that GNIS is not a reliable indicator of what constitutes a populated place. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Derby, Missouri

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

State historical society calls it a minor lead mine. 1950s topo shows nothing particularly indicative of a settlement. This old book further demonstrates that it's more mine than settlement. I'm seeing nothing that indicates it was a town. This mentions Derby, but only briefly, and in the way a local landmark would be mentioned. Also namedropped here. I'm seeing evidence that this was just a mine, while I'm seeing no evidence this was a real town. Whatever it was, it fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 20:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete More mass-produced junk perpetuating false content. Reywas92 Talk 21:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep I've added a bit of content. Yes the community is the location of a lead mine and separating the mine from the community would be challenging perhaps as the the Derby-Doerun Dolomite was named for the mining communities of the area. Was it a town? Hard to say, but it is a significant part of the area as the location of a historic mining area. The GNIS folks just say populated place - so perhaps the "unincorporated community" should be changed (what is the technical difference there?).
    • GNIS is not a reliable source if we're being honest. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headquarters, Arizona where it called a National Park service headquarters building a "populated place". And anyway, being a populated place isn't enough to pass WP:GEOLAND. It has to be a legally recognized populated place to pass that, and I have still seen no evidence of that. As a lead mine/cluster of buildings it doesn't meet GEOLAND or GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 01:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Seems the GNIS is a reliable source. Yes, they have made mistakes (they be human). I have found a few mistakes and notified them concerning the mistakes. What group doesn't make occasional mistakes? Whatever you wish to call it - Derby exists and is shown on USGS topo maps and has a geologic unit named for it. Vsmith ( talk) 02:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Saying blandly that "Seems the GNIS is a reliable source" in the face of all the evidence we have amassed to the contrary is just not good enough. The evidence speaks for itself: Derby as a place existed, but it was not the sort of place that our article claims it to be. Mangoe ( talk) 14:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Derby is/was a lead mine and needs to meet basic notability standards--multiple, in-depth coverage by reliable sources. I don't see anyting that fits the bill. Glendoremus ( talk) 03:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment By default, GNIS calls almost every human-built structure a populated place. Most so-called populated places are NOT communities. I've seen hundreds of cases where GNIS identified railroad stations, ranches, wharves, dairy farms, etc. as populated places. Clearly they do not meet any reasonable definition of a community. Glendoremus ( talk) 04:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Expanded sufficiently to demonstrate this historic mining community has lent its name to a nearby geological formation. 72.49.7.25 ( talk) 19:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Sorry, but the reference you added simply states "The formation was named for the Derby mine (now Federal mine), near Elvins." Nothing adds any credence to your assertion that Derby was a community. And if you want to assert that the mine was notable, you still need to show multiple in-depth articles articles from reliable sources. Glendoremus ( talk) 20:23, 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 redirect to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (British game show)#Top prize winners. Most of the keep !votes are substanitally lacking in policy and reason. After discounting them, there's a rough consensus to redirect. If he does become notable in the future, the article can be easily recreated. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Donald Fear

Donald Fear (  | 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 person. being the sixth person to win something on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire might be an impressive dinner story but it doesn't make him notable. There is a complete lack of in depth coverage as well. Praxidicae ( talk) 19:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

That's like saying "give me a credit limit of $500k because I might win the lottery one day." Praxidicae ( talk) 20:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
You don’t play the lottery 2A02:C7F:7A9B:A100:1524:E735:CED6:3FD1 ( talk) 20:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
You're correct but my argument is spot on. We don't rely on the potential for future notability. Praxidicae ( talk) 20:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Ahh yes, Wikipedia, the site where everyone contributes knowledge for everyone to know! Unless, of course, someone would prefer to take time out of their day to say they'd rather deprive you of it. Fancy looking up the six winners of a Gameshow spanning over 20 years who's wins have been highly documented? Yeah, tough. Some bloke said so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurugby54 ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep or Merge while keeping all necessary information in the merged section - this person is the first person to have won and used only one lifeline. I know that people are usually not considered notable for 1 event, so maybe all WWTBAM winners should be merged into one article (except for the ones who are notable for other reasons as well). 45.251.33.48 ( talk) 03:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A WP:ONEEVENT person. I hope the closer is keeping note of all the mysterious IP editors who are participating in this discussion. - Indy beetle ( talk) 07:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Donald Fear is notable as he has made headline news around the UK. He will only become more notable in the same way that the other 5 jackpot winners of the show have. The absence of reliable sources can be addressed, and I will try to add as many as I can find soon. The fact that his brother also competed on the show last year means that the Wikipedia article is not just about Donald Fear's singular appearance on one games show. Bibeyjj ( talk) 08:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I have added references, expanded and rewritten certain sections, and generally made the majority of the article well-referenced. It has grown to a size where the stub categorisation could potentially be removed. The article has improved significantly since the deletion request was first addressed, and I encourage users to reconsider whether Donald Fear is not notable enough for an article. Bibeyjj ( talk) 08:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As mentioned above, all but one of the other winning contestants have articles. I realise that Keppel and Gibson have since gone on to become Eggheads which increases their notability, but Edwards and Wilcox have articles seemingly solely due to winning the jackpot on the show, so why should Fear’s article be any different? Mojo0306 ( talk) 09:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.-- Laun chba ller 10:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
By main page, you mean the Who Wants to be a Millionaire? page, right? Foxnpichu ( talk) 21:55, 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.  JGHowes  talk 22:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Rock, Missouri

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

State historical society calls it "Rock Post Office", and it frankly seems to have been nothing more than a post office. Google maps gives me a trailer home, a couple barns, and one house. The SHS source also makes it clear that this post office was in a small portion of a rural store. It's not on the small-scale 1940 topo that I can find. All signs point to this being a case of GNIS error in identifying a fourth-class post office as a town. Hog Farm Bacon 19:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • This one is a bit problematic as it isn't depicted on a USGS topo map. Seems GNIS error in identifying a fourth-class post office as a town is a bit off though. These historic post offices were typically located within a country store which served the citizens of a rural area back when travel was likely by horse and buggy and local country stores/post offices were important. Some folks may have their modern citified blinders on :) Sorry 'bout that. Roll on, Vsmith ( talk) 14:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Vsmith: I'm a lifelong rural resident, and I'm aware that these don't meet the GEOLAND requirement of "legally recognized, populated place". While these country stores were a local gathering place, Wikipedia doesn't consider local gathering place to be notable. The rural Midwest is full of extinct country churches, random local primary schools in the middle of cow pastures, named farms/ranches, and places where one family had a house there long enough that people started calling it "the old Smith place". I wouldn't contend that any of the above are notable, even though some of the names lived on enough to make it on maps, even to the present day. If local importance with no evidence of legal recognition is considered notability, then an RFC on WP: GEOLAND is necessary. Hog Farm Bacon 15:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Seems the establishment of a post office should be evidence of "legal recognition" ... unless they were illegally established. Vsmith ( talk) 19:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Whether post office naming constitutes a legal authority is already problematic, but in any case the problem here is that you keep assuming that every place that had a post office was some sort of community. That's just not how it was. 4th class post offices were frequently moved and renamed, often simply because the house changed hands or because the office was moved from one house to another. A lot of them were in railroad depots with nothing else much around them. Even now there are still post offices which was just a window or counter in a store or the like: the post office in Essex, Montana is in the office of a motel. Post offices were established to give people a place to collect their mail in the era before Rural Free Delivery, which is why there were so many of them around the turn of the century. Mangoe ( talk) 20:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Cited reference says clearly that Rock was a post office in a local store, named for the limestone rock on which it sat. No reference indicates that this was a community. Glendoremus ( talk) 03:23, 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 20:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Margret A. Treiber

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR notability. I couldn't find any significant mentions of her or reviews of her work in reliable sources. The only source in the article is also unreliable - written by a community member not affiliated with the news website. Whisperjanes ( talk) 19:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes ( talk) 19:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes ( talk) 19:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 19:44, 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. Tone 20:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Giorgio Razzoli

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. No sensible WP:ATD. Has been in the CAT:NN backlog for over 11 years. Boleyn ( talk) 19:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:06, 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 merge to Tan-Tar-A Resort. Tone 20:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Tan-Tar-A Resort Seaplane Base

Tan-Tar-A Resort Seaplane Base (  | 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 private airport for seaplanes. It exists, as demonstrated by database entries like this one, but frankly all you can say about this airport is that it exists and give the basic geographic information about it. WP:NAIRPORT is only an essay, but it looks pretty common-sense to me. It states that private airports are generally non-notable, and the lack of coverage for this one seems to bear that out. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 19:05, 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. Sandstein 17:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Alberta, Missouri

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

Likely GNIS error. GNIS calls it a populated place, but the state historical society calls it a short-lived rural post office. Google maps only has a couple barns and a business selling mobile homes at the site. An old 1953 topo map only has two or three buildings at the site. Local history book from 1919 mentions the post office closing, and someone being from near Alberta, but from all indications, this was only a closed fourth-class post office and nothing further. Yet another reason why it's a bad idea to mass-produce stubs from GNIS, especially when other sources don't call it a town. Hog Farm Bacon 18:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The point is, the community doesn't have evidence that it ever did exist. What you have is evidence of a 4th class post office. Mangoe ( talk) 18:56, 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 merge to Jean Grey. Tone 08:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Alternative versions of Jean Grey

Alternative versions of Jean Grey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the majority of the other similar AfDs on these topics, this is an unnecessary article split for the purpose of shoving off overly in-depth plot information that should have been condensed and summarized. As an offshoot, it does not establish independent notability to meet WP:GNG. Aside from a singular minor interview response that's hardly important enough to bother including anywhere, there is no real world information in the article that makes it worth merging. TTN ( talk) 18:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 18:33, 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. Tone 08:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

ScanSource

ScanSource (  | 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 tried stubifying this as an alternative to deletion (since it's almost entirely an unsourced puff piece but looked like there was potential for notability), but IPs geolocating near the company's headquarters keep reverting that, so guess I'm going down the AfD path instead. Appears to fail WP:NCORP - the biggest claim to notability appears to be the "best places to work" and "Fortune's world's most admired companies." For the former, it's ~20th place on the list for several years, which doesn't seem especially noteworthy, and for the latter, I've failed to find significant coverage from Forbes explaining why it's "most admired" and it's not even in the top 100 on that list). This article is a puff piece without reliable sources, there have been a lot of IPs geolocating near the company's headquarters editing it, and the best coverage I found from a BEFORE was investment outlook and merger + acquisition news (textbook WP:MILL). GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:20, 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 redirect to Soulcrusher (Operator album). Tone 08:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Soulcrusher (song)

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

Unsourced since creation in 2008, and I can't see how this passes WP:NSONG. Merge and redirect to Soulcrusher (Operator album) as {{ R from song}}, taking the hatnote with it but as {{redirect|Soulcrusher (song)|the song by White Zombie|Soul-Crusher (song)}}. (Soul-Crusher (song) is already an R from song.) Narky Blert ( talk) 18:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • No. Chart positions are a good sign that a song might be notable, but notability is more so established by whether or not there is substantial coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:04, 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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Noah Berkson

Noah Berkson (  | 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, WP:TOOSOON Kleuske ( talk) 18:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kleuske ( talk) 18:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske ( talk) 18:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Kleuske ( talk) 18:06, 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. Tone 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Haitham Kassem

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER   //  Timothy ::  talk  18:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  18:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist ( talk) 08:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete I have done a search in Arabic and found that there is a lot of coverage of Haitham Kassem al-Tahir who is a former defence minister and who is still very active and is definitely notable. He has an ar.wiki article with no English equivalent. It seems he is so well-known that he is sometimes referred to just as Haitham al=Kassem rather than with his full name. However I'm pretty sure that the subject of this stub article is not the same person. Of the two sources in the current article one looks like it's dead and the other is just a passing mention. All of the other hits I've got in my search are to the former defence minister and not to this guy, so I think it's safe to conclude he's not notable. Mccapra ( talk) 10:54, 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. Tone 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Harvard Mountaineering Club

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purdue Outing Club, university interest group without independent coverage. Notability not established with substantive sources, entirely paraphrased from non-independent source [3]. Reywas92 Talk 17:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 Talk 17:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:06, 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.  JGHowes  talk 22:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Serial month

Serial month (  | 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 is the definition of a term. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY: "articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded beyond a definition, Wikipedia is not the place for them."   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:48, 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. Tone 18:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Suno Mahabharat Devdutt Pattanaik ke Saath

Suno Mahabharat Devdutt Pattanaik ke Saath (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet GNG. BEFORE showed promos, short interviews and mentions but nothing that addresses the topic directly and in depth.   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:37, 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. Tone 17:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

List of politicians of royal heritage

List of politicians of royal heritage (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced list of people, on a characteristic that sounds more significant than it really is. As has been repeatedly pointed out by scientists, virtually everybody of European heritage is a descendant of Charlemagne, virtually everybody of Asian heritage is a descendant of Genghis Khan, and on and so forth -- not everybody can actually document their family trees that far back, but that's solely an inconsistency of human record-keeping, and doesn't change the fact that basically all humans are descendants of royalty along one or more of our genealogical lines. To be fair, the list is keeping things more narrow and manageable, listing (but still not actually referencing) only politicians who happen to be immediate children or grandchildren of royalty, but even that isn't a distinction that necessarily makes a politician special -- happening to have a royal parent or grandparent doesn't give a politician any special status or authority over his or her colleagues in and of itself. So this is basically just an unsourced list of trivia, not an important or defining distinction for a politician to hold. Bearcat ( talk) 17:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Useless list. As Bearcat says, apparently every person alive today of European ancestry can claim Charlemagne as an ancestor [4] so, arguably, all ethnically European politicians can be put on this list - and one could probably credibly argue that everyone on Earth, or the vast majority, are descended from an ancient royal. Might as well have a list of all politicians who have 10 fingers and toes. Sowny ( talk) 16:52, 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 17:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

735 St. Clair

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

Article does not meet GNG or NBUILD. One of the refs is to a National Register of Historic Places Registration Form application but the application is for a different building (see date built and address).   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:08, 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 17:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Uchechukwu Otti

Uchechukwu Otti (  | 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 singer ─ The Aafī ( talk) 16:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ( talk) 16:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ( talk) 16:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Why vote twice? That's against the rules and you added nothing to your previous vote anyway. –– DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 22:49, 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. Tone 17:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Free society

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

Delete as incoherent content fork. This page does not have a clearly defined topic. The lead describes this page as detailing the libertarian conception of a free society. In itself, that is a problem because to describe a libertarian free society is to describe libertarianism. ie, this would be a content fork. However, the content does not match the lead, and does not describe the libertarian concept of a free society. For example, at least two of the three authors cited in the second paragraph to define "free society" are definitely not libertarians.

The content in general discusses civil liberties, political freedom, freedom of speech and liberty. It adds nothing to those discussions that each of those pages have. There is no overarching concept uniting them supported by the literature. (By contrast, there are coherent topics like open society.) I can't think how it can be improved without simply content forking. What is a "free society" is an issue in many philosophies, but it would be WP:synth to assemble those theories on one page.

As a page linked to in Wikipedia, there are also problems. There are pages which link here because the page is part of the libertarianism template, even though the content is not about libertarian ideas. And then there are pages with links to the page that (a) clearly don't mean a libertarian free society and (b) cannot be assumed to mean the same conception of a free society. (eg "X campaiged for a free society").

I'm not a deletionist by nature, but I can't see how this page can be rescued from being a messy content fork. OsFish ( talk) 15:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:44, 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. Tone 17:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Bethany Bridge

Bethany Bridge (  | 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 bridge. My prod rationale was Non-notable bridge. This just says it's a bridge and gives its coordinates. This is a brief notice that the bridge was closed due to filming, not significant coverage of the bridge. The information on the bridge here is mirrored from this article. I'm not convinced this is a reliable source, but it's not significant coverage anyway. Not a reliable source here. I'm seeing no way this bridge passes WP:GEOFEAT or WP:GNG., which still stands. Deprodded with a suggestion to merge, but since the content is completely unsourced, and looks WP:UNDUE for coverage of one relatively minor bridge at the lake article, I'm thinking deletion is the best call here. Hog Farm Bacon 15:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 15:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 15:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 15:21, 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. Tone 17:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

...less than 24 hours.../Journey Into the Fields of Pain

...less than 24 hours.../Journey Into the Fields of Pain (  | 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 album. All of the references in the article either don't mention this album, are not independent of the subject, or don't mention the subject. WP:BEFORE turning up nothing better. Part of the product of an indeffed user who's been cranking out non-notable articles like this lately. Hog Farm Bacon 15:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 15:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 15:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 15:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. A limited edition cassette with no evidence of notability. Of the seven sources, three are the record company's website or the sleeve notes of the cassette itself, one is a directory listing of mail order companies that include the record label but make no mention of this cassette, one is an interview on a blog with an unrelated band who happen to mention the record company and its owner in passing without mentioning this cassette, and another is a French fanzine with one-sentence summaries of each cassette produced by the record company. The only reliable source, The Morning Call, makes no mention of this cassette. Even if you were to allow all these sources, they still say nothing more than that this cassette exists. Redirection is not an option because of WP:XY, and anyway, it's doubtful that either artist would survive an AfD nomination. Richard3120 ( talk) 18:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. With so little actual coverage, this fails WP:NALBUMS. There is nothing of note here to merge elsewhere. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per all of the above. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 18:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for the reasons mentioned by the voters above and at all the other recent AfDs for album and band articles recently created by Soul Crusher. That person can discuss his collection of obscure industrial albums at scenester blogs. This one was not noticed by anyone outside of an esoteric community of collectors. See also the incident investigation here. –– DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 22:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per WP:XY. Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Per above, not enough coverage to be notable. Alex-h ( talk) 13:57, 15 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 17:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Districts and Schools using PAPER

Districts and Schools using PAPER (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even if this could be reliably sourced, a list of organizations using a particular product is no basis for an article - it's trivia, and based on the current sourcing, promotional trivia. -- Pontificalibus 15:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Pontificalibus 15:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:30, 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 redirect to Abu Lubaba ibn Abd al-Mundhir. As has been demonstrated, this is an alternate name for the existing article. No need to prolong this discussion, as we have a consensus, folks. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Boulbaba

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

Biographical article which has extremely little information and has been unreferenced for the last 13 years. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Gabès and rename per Mccapra. Moneytrees🏝️ Talk🌴 Help out at CCI! 11:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Abu Lubaba ibn Abd al-Mundhir per HyperGaruda. Moneytrees🏝️ Talk🌴 Help out at CCI! 15:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Definitely not a hoax and a well-known (quasi) historical figure in Tunisia and yes it should be Sidi Boulbaba. A topic WikiProject Tunisia may be interested in creating a decent article on. I'm not volunteering to do it as the search I've done doesn't bring up RIS I could easily work with. The subject is almost certainly notable but we can't keep an unsourced bio. I'd suggest as an ATD redirecting to Gabès where he is sort of the local patron saint, but would not oppose deletion without prejudice against recreation if someone works up a properly-sourced article. Mccapra ( talk) 11:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Agreed. I couldn't find enough credible information to make a decent article, but this is way out of my sphere of knowledge. A redirect to be created later by an expert seems like the right way to go for now. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 12:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Moneytrees, Mccapra, and Fritzmann2002: Is this enough to establish that they are the same person? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks @ Eddie891 and HyperGaruda: Great find! Yes this clearly is the same person so the correct redirect target. Re the title ‘Sidi’, articles about Christian saints have ‘saint’ in the title. It’s not exactly the same thing, but we have Sidi Mahrez etc. Mccapra ( talk) 16:03, 23 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) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Habanos S.A.

Habanos S.A. (  | 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 case of Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill lacks sufficient RS thus fails WP:COMPANY Dtt1 Talk 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dtt1 Talk 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dtt1 Talk 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:03, 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 Not Required. Page already speedy deleted by admin for WP:CSD A7 (non-admin closure) Roller26 ( talk) 21:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Vijayakumar Tamilanban

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

Not notable. He wrote one book which did not receive much attention. Chuka Chief ( talk) 14:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per the nomination, subject fails WP:GNG

Patrickmee ( talk) 05:38, 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 redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network#Former original programming. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

National Lampoon's Funny Money

National Lampoon's Funny Money (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NTV: " the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone[...]a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage." Extensive searching on newspapers.com found only TV Guide listings and "buzz" articles about Jimmy Pardo that only mention the show in passing. Likewise, the two sources I linked at the bottom of the page are also a "buzz" article on Jimmy Pardo that only tangentially mentions the show, and a Variety blurb mentioning an episode count in the greater context of GSN's scheduling.

Everything else I found is merely directory listings (TV.com, IMDb, etc.), message boards, parenthetical mentions in articles about Jimmy Pardo, or Z-list comedians' websites/social media accounts mentioning that they got their 15 minutes of fame by performing on this show. In short, this show seems to have come and gone without anybody noticing. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The show has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Television Shows. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network, where it is already listed - The entry in the encyclopedia mentioned above consists only of a short paragraph summarizing the basic premise of the game show, which is not particularly in-depth, and provides no real information demonstrating notability. Pretty much all other sources are the same - very brief mentions of the show that prove it existed, but no actual coverage that could sustain an article. I was initially going to just vote to Delete as I could not find an appropriate place on any of the National Lampoon-related articles that would make sense as a Redirect target, but then I noticed that it is already included in the list of shows broadcast by the network it was on, which seems like it would work as the target of a Redirect. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • We already have an article which seems quite adequate and so there's no need to find some great tome on the topic to "sustain" some hypothetical, huge screed – "Enough is as good as a feast". The professional encyclopedia demonstrates that a brief entry for this topic is sensible and appropriate and there's no particular need for anything more. Andrew🐉( talk) 15:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I am afraid that I can't agree that a single sentence and the schedule for what time it aired can be considered significant coverage. That book is one of the items I was referring to when I referred to sources that have brief mentions that do nothing but prove that WP:ITEXISTS, without actually indicating any notability. The Variety article was also already mentioned and argued against by the initial nomination, so I was already considering that when I made my comment. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:32, 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. Tone 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Tmronow

Tmronow (  | 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 and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 TT me 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

The Bechdel Cast

The Bechdel Cast (  | 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. Passing mentions, a review of an episode and lots of merchandise. Kleuske ( talk) 13:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Kleuske ( talk) 13:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Kleuske ( talk) 13:09, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Naina Sarwar

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

Couldn't find any sources. Created by blocked user (paid). TamilMirchi ( talk) 00:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 00:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 00:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Sources on the page suggests it passes WP:GNG#Entertainers - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Extended feature also here on her career [15]. Again - the editor who is nominating has a history of putting articles up for deletion / creating unnotable articles of actors he likes without discussion. Neutral Fan ( talk) 01:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What about sources? We need sources that cover her in depth. She played the lead in one notable film while the other films are not notable because there is no significant coverage. TamilMirchi ( talk) 01:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
What do you mean? All the other films are notable and do have reliable coverage [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] Neutral Fan ( talk) 01:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC). reply
She is not mentioned in the last three reviews (photo does not count). TamilMirchi ( talk) 01:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
TamilMirchi - and why doesn't photos count? where is the rule which says that? who ever created that ToI article - obviously acknowledge that Naina starred in those films. Anyway, along with the above - there is also these [21] [22] [23] [24]. Surely, enough to stay. Neutral Fan ( talk) 22:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete sources need to be about a person. If there are reviews of a film that fail to mention a particular person appearing in the film in them this is a sign the role is not significant and thus not leading to acting related notability. We also need to be very vigilant against articles created by processes involving paid editing. Wikipedia is not a Who's Who pay to get included platform. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Article fails GNG, BASIC and NACTOR. Sources are mentions, nothing that covers the subject directly and indepth. It might just be TOOSOON, but WP is not CRYSTAL   //  Timothy ::  talk  18:20, 22 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 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Annie Harvilicz

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

Not-notable subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. I did an evaluation of all 12 citations for the purpose of establishing (or not) this subject's notability. My results are posted at Talk:Annie Harvilicz#Notability evaluation. My conclusion was that this subject fails the WP:BASIC notability tests. Normal Op ( talk) 01:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Normal Op ( talk) 01:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 02:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 02:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Article reads somewhat promotional. As researched, there is no substantial notability in the references. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 10:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The closest thing to notability I see here is a very brief mention in the LA Times. I did not find anything else in my own quick search. I would not be as quick to dismiss some of the sources as Normal Op is in their useful notability evaluation, but I still don't see anything that constitutes WP:BASIC. I am curious if Dogsforlife1001 has input. Jmill1806 ( talk) 19:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Not so sure - Keep: Some coverage (one-line mentions) [1]What do we know about the Animal Wellness Foundation other than Dr. Harvilicz's role as its founder? Is that the AWF that goaded the People's Republic of China to reclassify dogs and to ban the eating of dogs' tissues? [2] We know that Wayne Pacelle, former President of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), is involved (reputedly as the founder of AWF's activist wing, AWA, a PAC; however, he is also called 'a volunteer) [3], which may have been able to promote a shift in food procurement policy in San Francisco. [4] [5] [6] Is that Animal Wellness Foundation itself significant? [7] [8] It seems that AWF and AWA have been quite busy doing many (seemily uncoordinated) things (where there is much to do), and that there is much more where there is a will to search for it. Then, of course, there are efforts of her activist organizations. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] It seems that AWF and AWA have been quite busy doing many (seemily uncoordinated) things (where there is much to do), and that there is much more where there is a will to search for it. MaynardClark ( talk) 04:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC) MaynardClark ( talk) 04:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Sources

  1. ^ Animal Wellness Center Announces Grand Opening. Page 9. February 5, 2010. Beverly Hills Courier. Accessed September 10. 2020.
  2. ^ The Bark Editors. Chinese Gov Proposes to Reclassify Dogs and Ban Dog Meat Trade. April 2020. The Bark. Accessed September 10. 2020.
  3. ^ Gunther M. The return of Wayne Pacelle. July 19, 2018. Nonprofit Chronicles. Accessed September 10 2020.
  4. ^ Animal Wellness Applauds San Francisco for Landmark Food Procurement Policy ("replacing their total volume of animal products with plant-based foods by at least 50% by 2024"), a 'Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP)' 'policy movement' occurring in numerous cities around the United States.
  5. ^ [ Staff Reports. Program offers financial rewards for cockfighting convictions. December 9, 2019. Pacific Daily News USA TODAY Network. Accessed September 10, 2020.]
  6. ^ Veterinarians lead council for animal protection: Animal Wellness has named 10 veterinarians to spearhead nationwide advocacy for animals. November 20, 2019. Veterinary Practice News. Accessed September 10. 2020 - Feature photo is Dr. Harvilicz
  7. ^ Pet Product News Staff. Animal Wellness Foundation Creates Coronavirus-Related Emergency Fund Program. Apr 7, 2020. Pet Product News Staff. Accessed September 10, 2020
  8. ^ American Wild Horse Campaign, Animal Wellness join with bipartisan members to protect wild horses: Advocacy groups push for House floor amendment to allocate $11 million of the current budget to PZP birth control to humanely manage wild horse and burro populations, Curbing Amount Spent on Roundups and Incarceration. July 19, 2020. American Wild Horse Campaign. Accessed September 10. 2020.
  9. ^ Staff Reports. Program offers financial rewards for cockfighting convictions. December 9, 2019. Pacific Daily News USA TODAY Network. Accessed September 10, 2020.
  10. ^ Profile of Animal Welfare Foundation. Nonprofit Explorer: Research Tax-Exempt Organizations. Accessed September 10, 2020.
  11. ^ https://www.ktvn.com/story/41492081/after-dog-neglect-suffering-animal-wellness-demands-end-to-state-depart-program-transferring-bomb-sniffing-dogs - dead link
  12. ^ Nicolson D. Animal Wellness Calls on New York Mayor Bill de Blasio: Animal Wellness Action and the Animal Wellness Foundation want mayor to consider carriage horse ban. March 6, 2020 8:39 am ET. Patch.com (Farmington Hills, MI)>Business. Accessed September 10, 2020
  13. ^ Clark CA. Animal Wellness Forms National Veterinary Council. December 1, 2019. LA Daily Post. Accessed September 10, 2020.
  14. ^ Animal Wellness announces National Law Enforcement Council. June 22, 2019. The Norman Transcript. Accessed September 10, 2020.
@ MaynardClark: Don't confuse the various organizations. AWF is the charitable arm of Harvilicz's veterinary practice, like when someone cannot pay for veterinary care. AWA is a new PAC founded by animal rights person Wayne Pacelle. Though Harvilicz may be a board member of AWA ( per AWA's website), neither she nor her AFW can "inherit notability" from being a board member of something else that MAY be notable. This is an AfD about Harvilicz, not Pacelle, not AWA-the-PAC, and not really AFW (although that's debatable since it's covered in Harvilicz's article and Harvilicz's creation). Now your LINKSPAM/ REFBOMB is of poor quality and I'm not going to check ALL of your citations. I checked several, and found only ONE that even mentioned Harvilicz's name, and that was just a single quote (not an article about Harvilicz). Most were about AWA and not AWF. I notice that often when AWA is mentioned, the two organizations are mentioned together ("AWA and AWF") but those articles do NOT cover AWF, they just cover AWA activity. So perhaps AWF is hoping to ride the coat tails of AWA, but per Wikipedia policy WP:INHERITORG, notability cannot be inherited — a person doesn't inherit notability for being associated with an organization, an org doesn't inherit notability by having a well-known person associated with it, and a second org doesn't inherit notability from a first org just because it's associated with it. Either Harvilicz and/or Animal Wellness FOUNDATION must stand on its own and get its own coverage (not brief mentions, either) or its just not notable. MaynardClark, you really need to start checking your citations before link-spamming/ref-bombing irrelevant stuff and wasting other editor's time. You've been plunking down heaps of links in the few articles we've crossed paths on lately. And please start reading Wikipedia policy. Normal Op ( talk) 08:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Normal Op:Good distinction. However, in my notes, I posed the question about whether the Foundation itself is notable. In that spirit, note the coverage of AWF. Their own websites make claims for Harvilicz's direct involvement with all those efforts, but we want not to include self-reporting. But my response was, 'Not so sure - Keep' (not merely 'Keep') because it seemed that there was reason to do more inquiry (not merely to claim that there is nothing out there). Other editors' (and my) 'busy times' are not the best time periods for taking on a fight (but why do I care?). Well, AWF and AWA are interesting, but to your point, a number of other persons are out there doing the work while veterinary practice continues. Hmmm. I did notice the coverage by smaller newspapers (e.g. Norman, Oklahoma). Surely merely attending the 25th Anniversary Genesis Awards ceremony in 2011 (and having several photos taken with celebrities) is not in itself notable. 'Dr. Harvilicz is a member of the AWF/AWA National Veterinary Council...' (her own organization). MaynardClark ( talk) 10:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Please don't re-edit older AfD discussion comments! I am NOT going to re-read your (substantially changed) lengthy comment (the one above mine) in order to figure out what is different. Always add new content below. Use strike-out if you want to delete something. Normal Op ( talk) 16:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I agree. I am sympathetic to the other topics raised by MaynardClark, but I'm not seeing a plausible way in which they make Annie Harvilicz herself notable. My vote is still delete. Jmill1806 ( talk) 21:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Thank you. I suspect that the decision will be 'delete' (in part because of life factors that have prevented her from doing more at her young age. MaynardClark ( talk) 22:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your contribution too. It would be nice to reconsider this in the future if the relevant factors for WP:GNG change for the subject. Jmill1806 ( talk) 22:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I wonder whether or not the topic of China's claimed ban or regulation of dog eating deserves a mention of the sources of social influence on that policy. If so, was AWA/AWF's claimed role in that change sufficiently notable to deserve a mention in an article on the topic? [1] MaynardClark ( talk) 16:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Like I said previously on this page, AWA is the PAC, and AWF (not a PAC) is riding their coattails. The article is about PAC-related activities. The article doesn't mention Harvilicz and only mentions AWF in passing which doesn't contribute towards notability. Normal Op ( talk) 17:01, 15 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 draftify. Cutting through the walls of text, it seems the rough consensus is that this article should 1) go to the draftspace and 2) go through AFC before being mainspaced. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Aliza Ayaz

Aliza Ayaz (  | 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 Activist. Net-worth even 390 million pounds(no refs)? The article was started by User:Az.jooma the previous draft was rejected on 5th August 2019, not sure what has changed since then, for this article to be moved from the Draft space to the main space. The editing trend indicates paid editing. Angus1986 TALK 13:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Update: The sockpuppets cleverly moved the page of her brother from main space to User Talk and requested the page to be deleted. Clearly indicate paid editing. Angus1986 TALK 13:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC) @ AngusWOOF Need your opinion over here, since you rejected the draft last year with the same old references. Newly added sources aren't reliable. Angus1986 TALK 15:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Being a genuine activist doesn't make one notable, she fails notability and the editing on her page and the creation of her brother's page indicate paid editing. Angus1986 TALK 15:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • (The original nomination claimed the page was "Clearly a scam." The nominator has since clarified the wording, but AP was obviously rebutting nom's now-removed accusation. It would have been clearer to strike the claim than to remove it completely.) pburka ( talk) 15:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 14:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 14:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I removed the uncited net worth claim. pburka ( talk) 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify It's heavily promotional with most of the article being large blocks of quotations from her. I can't tell from the sources where she would be independently notable. If the primary editor can provide WP:THREE of the best sources, that would be more helpful. Needs newspaper coverage, not blogs, not from within her associated organizations that are showering her with accolades. Teen Choice Awards for example is completely random and seems to be a vaguely connected local award not the ones they show on television. Winning her school's local awards isn't notable either. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 15:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your valuable feedback. It makes sense. :) Angus1986 TALK 15:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The first edit to the article was by Az.jooma with the edit summary "KGS IT staff creating page". KGS is likely "Karachi Grammar School" which the subject attended. So, rather than the overly-hasty accusation of "a scam", "paid editing" and "sockpuppetry", the article could just as easily have been created by staff and students who share an interest in their relatively-illustrious one-time student (and perhaps share the same IP address)? I think that good faith should be assumed until proof is provided of paid editing or as a result of Angus1986's ongoing SPI report. Esowteric+ Talk 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The proof is that they added fake "Net Worth of 390 million pounds" and the suspected sock puppet "Ucliehcs" created an article on her brother Aashir Ayaz(also added 350 million pounds on his page) and when I placed a speedy deletion tag, the user tactically moved the page from the main space to User Talk page. Angus1986 TALK 16:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
These are clearly novice editors, and they probably copied the article to user talk space in a misguided attempt to save their work from deletion (perhaps thinking it would be lost). Esowteric+ Talk 15:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Esowteric+ Talk 09:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Esowteric+ Talk 15:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Three best independent, reliable sources to support notability:
Brandysnario isn't a notable/reliable source, doesn't count. Also, the people who created the page for her brother intentionally moved from main space to User Talk to avoid deletion(after I placed a speedy deletion tag),so not so novice people. Moreover, it has been draftified by an admin, so I am pretty sure this will be draftified too. Good luck saving. AngusMEOW ( chatter • paw trail) 18:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Very well, then, try this for a third independent, reliable source:
Have opened an entry at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is brandsynario.com a reliable source? Regarding notability: Note that many reliable sources do not have a Wikipedia article. Esowteric+ Talk 18:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Also, what you failed to mention was that Draft:Aashir Ayaz had just one unreliable source, so the two cannot be equated. Esowteric+ Talk 19:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Putting aside the blackening of editors' names, the real question is: Has this particular subject a valid claim to notability? Esowteric+ Talk 21:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Esowteric I understand you have a Conflict Of Interest but the same articles were presented before in the last submission and it was rejected by a very experienced editor. The subject clearly fails WP:GNG. :) AngusMEOW ( chatter • paw trail) 06:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Please note: AngusMEOW is former Angus1986 and is not related to me. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The task here is to assess the current evidence about this subject, in this current case. I've debatably provided 3 or 4 sources to support a claim of notability for the subject. As I said, sources can be reliable without themselves having Wikipedia articles (for example, some local newspapers, some peer-reviewed scientific journals and many web sites). What criteria are you using to assess sources in Wikipedia articles before making AfD nominations? Yes, the article is "overgrown" as it stands, but it could be rigorously pruned and edited. Esowteric+ Talk 08:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify References 1,3,4 aren't not independent. 2 is. The first nine references aren't that cool either, apart from two. If it is draftified it will need a considerable rewrite. scope_creep Talk 09:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify - clearly does not meet mainspace standards of quality or referencing. Onel5969 TT me 13:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Advice, please: Can anyone advise one of the involved editors, Studentsunion ( talk · contribs)? They've left a message on my talk page and I've suggested they post a message here. Thanks. Esowteric+ Talk 16:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Responding to useful chain aboveDear all, thank you very much for sharing your useful comments. I am sorry, but I believe I must clarify, I am not even sure whether this is the right way to respond to your comments so where pointed out that the team and I are not well versed in making or editing Wikipedia pages, this is true. At the Students Union, we are a group of sabbatical officers, employed staff, and other members who are UCL alumni i.e recent graduates. As a Union of the University College London (UCL), we maintain access to all student records including general personal information. You can verify this across the internet or by calling UCL. We ensure consent from the student in publicising their information, even when not already publicised. As we are a team of over 32 people, almost all of whom maintain access to our social media, wikipedia log in's and so on, it is very much possible that conflicting edits were made but this was all solely to try to improve our content. Where there have been immature edits, we can only apologise. We all work from the same place and hence the same IP address so that is not surprising. We have noted all the comments above and to add to a list of verifiable and notability, UCL has various webpages that share her achievements over time. As a mere student representative at the House of Lords (and not actually a Baroness or permanent member), she is not enlisted on the HoL websites but is a confirmed and current representative. Our team is also very much careful in promoting our best students and members and ensure reliability as we cannot suffer backlash in representing incorrect or inappropriate information. In places where we have used direct quotes from her, we feel they added a face and value to her activism and how she successfully led to the UK Parliament declaring the climate emergency. All quotes are available on publicly available podcasts - perhaps even a quick google search will help. Again, I must say that edits have been made by different team members at different points and unfortunately no one has kept track. We do not have a system for accountability yet but lesson learned. As pointed out, various news channels have covered her work. She has been invited and involved with Cambridge and Oxford University too. I am continually discussing the above chain in my group chat with colleagues and we are looking to inform the subject itself too. However, we remain confused, where is the "net worth" or her brother's page? In any case, all your edits are most welcome. It is a bit hard to keep track of all the Wikipedia guidelines and standards, so does anyone have a suggested manuscript? We can work on the edits immediately to ensure we address (and hopefully avoid) the deletion nomination. Esowteric, especially thank you for advising us and we look forward to improving this. Could anyone confirm the next step please? Thank you so very much to all of you again for the useful discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Responding to useful chain above Forgot to address one thing, our team can confirm that KGS is Karachi Grammar School as per our records and her school too participated in the Wikipedia page production. I am told one of our ex-colleagues has had a call with the school about this too. This is not paid editing as the SU is non-for-profit and solely for the students' interests. Hope this helps! Would it help if we provided more links to share her work perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Addressing the deletion nominationDear all, we originally left a message on Esowteric's talk page who kindly informed us to discuss here. Just for the sake of updating (and apologies if we fail to understand how Wikipedia/talk pages work). We have stated recently:

"Dear Esowteric,

We are the Students Union at UCL. We are thankful for your time to leave some useful comments on one of our page's i.e Aliza Ayaz. We have just noticed them and will be working to improve them, although the team is a bit confused and unsure about how best improve the page. I notice the page say's "nominated for deletion". Is there any you could please consider not nominating for deletion? We would have to make the page from scratch and can verify that it is genuine. We are more than happy to organise Teams or Zoom calls with one or two of our team members to discuss this. We promise to try our best to work on this but are a little overwhelmed with other commitments at the SU. Could we please have some time to work on this - the current notices that appear on the page could be embarrassing for the university's image and the Students Union specific team members. If you could perhaps help us improve, we welcome absolutely any suggestions and changes as well. We would just request some kind guidance and help please. Thank you very much.

___ "We want to take this as a learning lesson for our work as we plan to create pages for some of our other notable staff too. We also want to avoid the page being deleted as it was a lot of hard work for some of us collating all the information. We apologise very much for failing to meet standards but hope to edit rigorously and ensure editors do not have an issue. We also remain confused about some aspects re: some information about net worth which isn't actually in the article? also re: are we not allowed to disclose how many siblings she has? One of our team members has confirmed adding this information as it is on student records and also widely known amongst the academic, student and professional community here and didn't think there would be any harm in adding. We are now also working on strictly monitoring who makes edits as it appears that someone may have made edits as a joke or personal attack, although we cannot confirm this. We apologise for the inconvenience and look forward to working together with all editors. We thank you very much for your time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Studentsunion, 1) You have a conflict of interest if you are writing about a former or current member of your association. The tags for COI will have to remain until the article has been neutralized for tone by editors not connected to the subject. This would need to be disclosed by anyone who is connected to the union, the schools, or the organizations the subject has worked with. 2) Your username needs to be changed as it represents an organization. Only ONE person can use a particular Wikipedia account. 3) For the purposes of this AFD, you need to provide external news articles that cover the subject, not ones from the organization or associated with the organization. 4) If you are trying to add personal information about the subject, you will need to reference an external news source, and not private student records. 5) Whether the information about the subject is embarrassing or not should not matter; the article needs to be objective. See WP:PROUD But first, it needs to pass notability. 6) If you want more time to work on the article as a draft, then you can ask for it to go back to the Draft status. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Addressing AngusWOOF Thank you so very much for your helpful contribution. We will work on these over the course of next few weeks as we are a bit overwhelmed. 1. How may one change this page back to a draft status? 2. Where may we find an editor who may edit the page "neutrally" as per your first point? If any one of you is able to do so, we would very much appreciate any help. Happy to coordinate and work on edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Changes made to maintain page/avoid deletion Have added multiple more references to help out the issue of referencing and uncited claims. :) WUF, UN, UK Parliament and Bloomsbury Festival amongst other independent sources should hopefully confirm notability. Can also be verified by independently contacting the UK Parliament, The Guardian or University College London perhaps. Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentsunion ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Please sign your comments by using four tildes ~~~~ at the end. That will auto-generate your user signature. If you could get someone other than Aliza Ayaz to write a Guardian article, that would greatly help with notability. Esowteric+ Talk 08:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • As a " a Union of the University College London (UCL), we maintain access to all student records including general personal information.... We ensure consent from the student in publicising their information, even when not already publicise" you would do better not to write articles about the alumni of your own college, tho it is not prohibited. If you do, you should be scrupulously careful, going thru AfC, declaring your conflict of interest, and being certain there are excellent references. You should be especially careful in writing article on those associated with your Union.-- that is a close enough relationship that you MUST declar the coi, and my advice would be to write about almost anything else. If a person connected with the union is notable, someone without COI will know about them and write the article. I personally do not consider it paid editing in the narrow sense I think we should use for it, but others here think it's so close as to make little difference. It it is certainly editing with a very strong COI. Experience shows it is close to impossible to write NPOV article about people closely associated with oneself--hence the strictures.
There is another problem: we permit editing only by individuals, not groups. Some individual people need to take the responsibility. If you are team writing such article, you are going about it wrong. If your " team is also very much careful in promoting our best students and members " everything written by them needs very strict scrutiny. This is exactly the type of editing COI was designed to prevent, and do not be surprised if other articles from the same origin are listed for deletion. Direct paid coi is often considered a reason for deletion; enthusiastic fans and alumni come very close to that. Looked at from another perspective, you are doing your notable alumni no favor in trying to write articles about them--quite the reverse. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Draftify with the proviso it goes through AfC before moving to mainspace - I hesitate to form an opinion over notability as what is written in the text is often not backed up by the references. For example in the section "Awards and nominations", only two of the five references confirm she has won the award. Normal practice where there is a WP:COI is that the article is written in draft and has to go through the WP:AfC process. The article may be salvageable, but it shouldn't be in mainspace as it is. -- John B123 ( talk) 20:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks, John B123. I've addressed the issue with awards, together with a number of other issues. Esowteric+ Talk 12:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

COI editing by AfD nominator: Might I please ask the nominator of this ongoing AfD not to make any more potentially tendentious edits to Aliza Ayaz that undermine the subject's notability (for example, through the removal of two reliable references and the selective reinstatement of just one), and to also refrain from reverting my addition of wikilinks in the List of British Pakistanis and a wikilink and content about the subject at Rare FM? Above all, this raises ethical questions about a conflict of interest and of propriety. Furthermore, I have been accused of having a "COI on Aliza Ayaz based on the number of edits performed" by AngusMEOW in both this AfD and at the sockpuppet investigation of Az.jooma. I have no links to the subject or to any of the other editors or suspected sockpuppets. Stand down, Trooper! Thank you. Esowteric+ Talk 07:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply

"The following is a list of notable British Pakistanis, namely notable citizens or residents of the United Kingdom whose ethnic origins lie in Pakistan". Maybe I misinterpreted the list requirements? Esowteric+ Talk 08:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • One of the AfDed Aliza Ayaz diffs — diffB2
  • One of the list diffs — diffB3
  • One of the Rare FM diffs (All I did was add the wikilink) — diffB4.
Note that Angus1986 recently changed their username to AngusMEOW and then to QuantumUniverse. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:56, 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 draftify to Draft:Mian Banda. ‑Scottywong | [communicate] || 03:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Mian Banda

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

This page does not meet GNG, which it must as a populated place without legal recognition. If anything it should be merged with Timergara, but there isn't a whole lot to merge. Trevey-On-Sea ( talk) 21:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC) reply
What makes the nominator think that this village has no legal recognition? A click on the word "books" above shows that it is recognised by censuses. Phil Bridger ( talk) 14:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Census tracts are not usually considered notable Trevey-On-Sea ( talk) 05:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
A village is not a census tract. Phil Bridger ( talk) 07:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Terrible excuse for an article, but does appear to be a recognised village. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • leaning delete There is certainly a Mian Banda in Pakistan, but I'm not the least convinced that it's anything like the place being talked about in this article. One set of references implies that it is on a substantial river; a news report recounts an address given at a seminary there with a name drop implying that everyone in Pakistan knows where it is. Meanwhile I get a clickbait mapper which locates it at a cluster of a 3-4 houses wedged at the end of a valley, clearly not consonant with the textual accounts. If someone could actually read the 1999 census it would help a good deal, but at the moment, given the sourcing and inconsistencies, I just cannot believe the text that we have now, and would suggest that starting over would be better than trying to work with what's there now. Mangoe ( talk) 14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • This appears to be a very poor latinization of a Pakistani language word. I can't find anything around Timegara that resembles this name so I'm leaning towards delete without prejudice for recreation if this turns out to be a legitimate population center. Oakshade ( talk) 21:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Changed to neutral based on Timothy's research below. If we could determine which population center this is for certain, then I'd say keep. Oakshade ( talk) 02:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Draftify (changed vote, see below): I found a census that records two places with this name in LOWER DIR DISTRICT here)) ). I'm not sure which one it is, I think its the one with 2564 population, (the other has 133 people) I think this accounts for Mangoe discovery above. But whichever it is, it is a populated legally recognized place and appears to meet GEOLAND   //  Timothy ::  talk  01:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Changed my vote to Draftify. Mackensen is right, if we're not sure what place it's referring to, then its not ready for mainspace. BD2412 I think has the right compromise, if it can't be developed, it will be deleted, but it will have a chance to develop if possible.   //  Timothy ::  talk  02:02, 25 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 University of Warsaw. Tone 18:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University of Warsaw

Faculty of Political Science and International Studies, University of Warsaw (  | 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 PRODed it with "he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." The author removed the PRO and asked for more time to expand it. The article has been expanded, yes, but I am afraid like most faculties it is still non-notable, sourced to PRIMARY sources and mentions in passing. PS. Considering the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Management of the University of Warsaw and the COI by at least one author, I do wonder if the University of Warsaw isn't trying some ill-thought promotion on Wikipedia? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 11:47, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Fernanda Lara

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

This musician doesn't seem notable. The only source in the article is to a basic Discogs listing and I couldn't find multiple, or any, in-depth reviews of her music anywhere. She doesn't even have an AllMusic listing. Supposedly she was nominated for or won (I can't really tell because they aren't sourced) some awards, but it looks they are for weird things like "best music website" and an award from a local city hall. Neither of which would qualify as notable. Even if there were references to back them up. So, there's nothing about her from what I can find that passes either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Adamant1 ( talk) 13:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not seem notable alright. Google results are the usual trash like social media, youtube, streaming links, the Discogs page, and lyrics sites. Most of the results are about different people with this name (?). I have seen the Portuguese article has some sources cited, but since I don't speak Portuguese I can't evaluate them. ( Google results) GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 13:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 11:43, 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 merge to Banpresto. As a mention, as proposed below. Sandstein 20:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Super Hero Operations

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

Obscure Japanese video game that doesn't meet WP:N. Outside a single review from Famitsu, I have had no luck with finding any kind of coverage of this game from reliable sources. Namcokid 47 (Contribs) 20:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge & Redirect to Banpresto - And by merge, I simply mean adding it to their list of games, as it is not currently listed there, and thus would need to be in order to have a Redirect make sense. The equivalent page on the Japanese Wikipedia is considerably longer, but doing a quick google translate shows that this is simply because it does an extensive plot summary/game guide on every character in the game. It does not actually cite any coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability, as the only one of the listed sources that is not a fansource is simply the game's strategy guide. I would imagine that the game was very likely reviewed in Japanese gaming magazines at the time, but until that coverage is actually located and integrated into the article, there is no actual reliably sourced material here, and thus we really can not keep the page as a stand alone article for now. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 11:35, 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 12:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2016 United Arab Emirates Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament

AfDs for this article:
2016 United Arab Emirates Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament (  | 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 would find this difficult how this article could pass WP:GNG with most of the other under-19 tri tournaments also be deleted. HawkAussie ( talk) 11:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 11:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 11:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie ( talk) 11:30, 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 Speedy delete. As per WP:G4 criteria by Woody (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 10:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2023 Formula One World Championship

AfDs for this article:
2023 Formula One World Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. All the sources in this article pertain to contracts. However, none of these contracts are new to 2023 (i.e. contracts also apply to 2022). A google search shows a complete absense of 2023 related sources. Only a couple about Verstappen's contract from 2020-2023 and speculation about a Grand Prix in Saudi Arabia.

There are insufficent sources for the 2023 season to be independantly notable at this time. I don't see that anything has changed since the last deletion discussion. Arguably WP:CSD#G4 could apply.
SSSB ( talk) 11:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per SSSB, there is virtually no content on the page and aside from contracts the 2023 season has effectively zero coverage.
5225C ( talk • contributions) 11:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:24, 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 speedy delete. WP:A7 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

FilmFuture

FilmFuture (  | 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 website which was launched this month generally fails to satisfy WP:NWEB & doesn’t satisfy either criterion from WP:WEBCRIT. Celestina007 11:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 11:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 11:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 11:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 11:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 11:09, 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. Tone 18:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

MyNation Hope Foundation

AfDs for this article:
MyNation Hope Foundation (  | 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 see if this article is fundamentally the same as the one deleted two years ago, but I notice that no new reliable independent sources have been added, so the same issues remain: lack of notability as indicated by a lack of such sources. Fram ( talk) 11:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 11:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham ( talk) 11:08, 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. No prejudice against creating an appropriate redirect. Mojo Hand ( talk) 15:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Achasta Golf Club

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

Not notable sports venue. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 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 merge to Thamidapadu. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Madhavanagar

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

As per the district census book of Nellore (on Page No. 193), the name of the village is Thamidapadu, there is no sign of Madhavanagar in the book. As the the first line of the article reads , it is a sub-village. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Nominated after PROD was removed. Zoodino ( talk) 10:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino ( talk) 10:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:37, 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.  JGHowes  talk 22:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

YAD06

YAD06 (  | 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 as lacks reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage which address the nominal topic directly and in detail. Of the two cited sources, Pearce quotes a blog comment about the tree but gives no further detail about it, Mann's book makes no mention of this specific tree. It's a minor part of controversy covered in the hockey stick graph article, and might be merged into that article, subject to care to avoid giving undue weight to one specific claim. dave souza, talk 10:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – think that redirect would go against WP:R#ASTONISH as it will give this tree name undue weight if it's given any mention in the hockey stick graph article. A better redirect would be to Steve McIntyre as he brought the name "YAD06" to public attention, and if the name [and specific controversy] is to be explained that would have more appropriate weight in his biography. Not convinced there's a need for a redirect. . . dave souza, talk 10:59, 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 keep. Tone 18:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Kalka–Barmer Express

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

WP:NOTTRAVEL, The article is about a general train. Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Nominating after PROD removed. Zoodino ( talk) 10:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Zoodino ( talk) 10:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino ( talk) 10:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm at a loss to work out why this express service (not train) is any less notable than any of the other 1,037 articles in Category:Express trains in India. It makes no sense whatsoever to delete individual articles piecemeal like this. Either all of them are notable or none (or almost none) of them are. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Category Category:Express trains in India has 20 sub categories and 1038 entries, most of which are either very close to this page's format or exactly like this page. I sampled 20 Express trains from this category at random, they are no different from this page. There are recent notability discussions on Named trains in India. I suspect the notability discussions will evolve on the talk pages to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian railways to including Express Passenger trains in India, all of which have nameboards on the Guard's Van. Deleting this will only open 1038 cans of worms. We need to evolve the notability on Indian Railways and their Express services.   -- Whiteguru ( talk) 10:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Its an important article in the indian railways train service series. It shouldn't be deleted for this reasons ive found more references on that from finding on google for launching and incident news etc. Feroze Ahmad 2 ( talk) 14:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are roughly 1500 articles on specific Indian trains. This being a long-distance Express train falls right in the criteria of majority of them. While I do agree that WP:Other stuff exists should not be applied for only a handful of examples, when there are 1500+ examples and most of them for many years, it makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roller26 ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Until a comprehensive discussion takes place. Named trains and long-distance trains of India do get news coverage during flag off, route diversion etc. Verifiability also does not seem to be an issue here. -- Ab207 ( talk) 16:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep per the above. No reason to kill this article. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is an WP:RUNOFTHEMILL unnamed train, where the "name" is basically just "[Where train starts]-[Where train ends] Express". Most of these types of articles were only made by a few editors, which isn't consensus. While named trains can be notable, this typically isn't true for unnamed ones. We don't create articles for the hourly service between London Waterloo and Poole or the daily Jinan to Kunming service, which are both also unnamed. If we do write about them, it's generally on their parent railway line or company, not in a new article. A search on Google News only gave result about an attempt to derail the train, but the rest is WP:ROUTINE coverage about train delays and cancellations. Jumpytoo Talk 21:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A major service linking multiple major Indian cities. Oakshade ( talk) 04:33, 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 18:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Chompoonut Phungphon

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

Biographical stub for a regional beauty pageant winner, but without any references that we can use to verify notability. Salimfadhley ( talk) 09:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:21, 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. Fenix down ( talk) 06:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification

Liverpool F.C. 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although the situation that led to Liverpool still having to qualify for the 2005–06 Champions League despite being the reigning champions is fairly interesting, the encyclopaedic value of this article is very niche and would probably be considered WP:FANCRUFT. The entire situation could be adequately described in a couple of sentences at 2005–06 Liverpool F.C. season and 2005–06 UEFA Champions League and doesn't require an in-depth study of how UEFA modified its qualification rules to manage circumstances like this. – Pee Jay 09:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:09, 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. Can be redirected separately if desired. Sandstein 11:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2020 United Arab Emirates explosions

2020 United Arab Emirates explosions (  | 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:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage of the incident benefited from the recent Beirut explosion and the fact that fatalities involved foreigners. However this pale in comparison with the historic Lebanon explosion. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 12:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 12:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:21, 2 September 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, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Aloyse Neu

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

He competed twice in the Chess Olympiad, but since any country can send a team without preliminary qualifications, this isn't a truly remarkable achievement for small or less chess-impressive countries like Luxembourg.

I can't find any reliable, independent sources about him (except databases and passing mentions), which means he fails WP:BIO. Fram ( talk) 13:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 13:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 13:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I create this article according Notability_of_chess_players:

3. Has won a national or continental championship or women's championship.

Aloyse Neu twice won national championship - Luxembourg Chess Championship (1954, 1959).-- Uldis s ( talk) 13:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

These project-written pages are not generally accepted notability guidelines, and this is an example of why not. Fram ( talk) 14:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Any reasonable interpretation of chess notability guidelines would ignore "national" championships in truly minor countries. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as he arguably meets WP:ANYBIO #1 if you regard twice winning a national championship as a significant honour. There doesn't seem to be much coverage online outside of raw databases but that does not mean that offline sources do not exist in chess periodicals of the time. It may be possible to expand the article in the future if these sources are found. P-K3 ( talk) 12:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • No, I don't regard winning a national championship in a very small country (or in a minor sport in a bigger country for that matter) a "significant honour" in itself. The article can be recreated if and when these potential sources are found, but keeping an article because sources may or may not exist is basically throwing WP:N out of the window.
    • To be precise, ANYBIO calls for "a well-known and significant award or honor": I don't think that "the national chess champion of Luxembourg" can be claimed to be such a "well-known and significant honor" (unlike e.g. a Victoria Cross, an Olympic title, ...) Fram ( talk) 12:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Since there is no qualifying for the Olympics, merely competing in it does not seem to be that big a deal, especially when representing a small country. For example, at the last chess olympiad there were 185 registered teams in the Open division and 151 in the Women's section with a total of almost 1700 participants. Neu's record at international team competitions appears to have been 1 win, 4 draws, and 23 losses which would seem to indicate he was not among the top tier of competitors. In addition, there is no supporting evidence to show that there is sufficient significant independent coverage to show notability. Chess databases aren't enough. I don't think being a two time champion of Luxembourg is sufficient to grant automatic notability. Papaursa ( talk) 03:58, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

It Just Gets Worse

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

An album lacking in reliable sources coverage. The only review I could find in reliable sources was the AllMusic one already in the article - there is a review at Sputnik Music but it is by a user not by staff. (Also beware that on google there is a Sputnik Music link that contains adware). The album is already covered in more depth on the band page particularly in the lyrics section. I had redirected it there but the redirect has been contested so bringing it here. Please be advised that the tracklist is offensive and searching with the band name will include unsavoury results. Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply
It wasn't nominated for deletion because it is offensive, but because it is largely unknown and never covered by reliable music media, except briefly by AllMusic. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 21:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable album. Only reliable source I found the Allmusic review. (Interestingly the biography page of the band itself is blank.) I have also found the Sputnikmusic review but it was written by a user. I have also found a Metal Storm review but it was written by a user as well. The rest of the results are the standard trash sites like Metal Archives, Discogs, Rate Your Music, Amazon, eBay, Spotify, etc, etc. The sites cited by Superastig are blogs/webzines, I have doubts about their notability. AxCx were offensive but that was part of the joke. Their song titles and presentation always crack me up. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 15:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 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 12:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Katie Larmour

Katie Larmour (  | 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 have found 3 sources that can be cosidered reliable, however it's the same local newspaper and the coverage is rather tabloid. 1, 2 and 3 - this one is an interview. However this is a far cry from what notability guidelines require. Other then these there is no coverage (user generated excluded). The subject fails WP:GNG. Less Unless ( talk) 08:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Less Unless ( talk) 08:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Less Unless ( talk) 08:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Less Unless ( talk) 08:34, 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. Fenix down ( talk) 06:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2014–15 BFC Siófok season

2014–15 BFC Siófok season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of these articles should ever have been created in the first place as the league is semi-pro. All fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS.

2014–15 Soproni VSE season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Soroksár SC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Szeged 2011 season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Szigetszentmiklósi TK season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Szolnoki MÁV FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Vasas SC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Zalaegerszegi TE season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Spiderone 08:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:20, 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. Fenix down ( talk) 06:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2014–15 FC Ajka season

2014–15 FC Ajka season (  | 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 articles are incomplete, however, the real issue is that they all fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS as the second tier in Hungary is semi-pro.


2014–15 Balmazújvárosi FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Békéscsaba 1912 Előre SE season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Ceglédi VSE season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Csákvári TK season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Gyirmót SE season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Kaposvári Rákóczi FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Mezőkövesdi SE season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Spiderone 08:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:19, 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. Fenix down ( talk) 06:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2018–19 Orapa United F.C. season

2018–19 Orapa United F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus is that Botswana's teams are semi-pro or amateur so WP:NSEASONS isn't met. I can't see WP:GNG either as, even in the better articles, the coverage is only routine match reports.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

2019–20 Orapa United F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018–19 Jwaneng Galaxy FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019–20 Jwaneng Galaxy FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019–20 Gaborone United SC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019–20 Township Rollers FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018–19 Township Rollers FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


Spiderone 07:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 07:47, 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 Draftify. Some say that "an article being in poor shape is not reason for deletion" - but that doesn't exclude draftification, as consensus here determines. Any recreation should, given the concerns here, go through AfC or a consensus-based process. Sandstein 11:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Native Americans and horses

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

This article is such a mess the only solution is WP: TNT. The concept is notable, but this one is poorly written, poorly sourced, has a staggering amount of inaccuracies and undue weighting, and so on. In some cases it perpetuates stereotypes about Native people and has any number of other cringe-worthy elements. Montanabw (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Montanabw (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Montanabw (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Montanabw (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉( talk) 15:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify: This is a new user, and this is his/her only article thus far. It is also cringeworthy as per nom, and needs a professional editing eye sprayed over it with lots of guidance to this user. This is not the place for perorations on good essay writing, but this is what this article needs.   -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I agree that this is full of inaccuracies and awkward simplifications, and needs to be rewritten. However, this is a production from a WikiEd course that has finished, and as is frequently the case with these courses, the author has not edited before or since and is unlikely to do so again. If the article was draftified, it would probably sit in draft for 6 months and then be soft-deleted. So if we want to get usable material out of this, that is not the way. And the topic per se is valid and well-documented, to the extent that I'm surprised we don't have a relevant separate article yet. Montanabw, you have an overview in these matters - are you sure this is not already covered elsewhere? Aren't there any good merge targets? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 14:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Add: there's Plains_Indians#The_horse, which covers a good chunk of this. Maybe merge there? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Reply The material in it at present is virtually all about the Plains tribes, so @ Elmidae: it could be merged there, yes. Montanabw (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep This nomination is not policy-based and is contrary to numerous policies including WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:OWN; WP:POINT;&c. I could list lots of sources but this is not necessary as the article already has a reasonable selection. Andrew🐉( talk) 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    Aaand here comes the bullshit. One wonders if it will take another decade before Andrew learns that notability, or availiability of sources, are not the only keep/delete criteria (no one has even hinted in that direction in this case); that horking out links to half a dozen vaguely connected policies is not Making An Argument; and that accusations of WP:OWN and WP:POINT require some smidgen of proof. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    Oh, and AfD nominations are violations of WP:BITE now? Am I dreaming? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    One just has to read these policies to understand their relevance. I could explain them all at length but that would take some time and my primary point is that this nomination is so egregiously bad that it should be closed forthwith. Andrew🐉( talk) 15:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    This is ineligible for speedy keeping since none of the reasons at WP:SKCRIT are met. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 15:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    The nomination "fails to advance any argument for deletion". It makes some vague complaints but fails to address the key point of our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." The topic is clearly quite notable and the nomination admits this. There is therefore no obstacle to improvement in situ and no pressing reason to delete such as BLP is given. This is the worst nomination I've seen since this one which started in a similar way, "Ugh, this is a mess...". Andrew🐉( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    No, the nominator gave a clear rationale for deleting. You may think it's a bad rationale, but that's not enough for a speedy keep. Speedy keeps are for nominations along the lines of "this is stoopid lulz", not for someone citing a well-trodden essay and who's claiming an article has major, unfixable flaws. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 16:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    No, the valid reasons for deletion are listed at WP:DEL-REASON and WP:TNT isn't in the list, not even close. The nomination is essentially WP:RUBBISH, which is an argument to avoid. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    Just so nobody is deceived, WP:DEL-REASON isn't an exhaustive list (it says so right at the top). If people are going to wikilawyer about policies, they perhaps shouldn't misrepresent what's actually stated there. Reyk YO! 12:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    Good grief, first off, if you need policy, then among other things, it's a Fork from other articles on the Plains Indians and various tribes within that tradition, as noted below. But more to the point, others are suggesting good ATDs, which is one outcome to an AfD nomination, and I think there are good suggestions being discussed. As noted below, TNT is a valid rationale when "an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from. When that point is reached, deletion provides a reset, and give editors a clean slate." At any rate, this particular article is of low quality and what is duplicative can be moved into other articles. I thought about just boldly blanking it and redirecting it to the horse section of Plains Indian article, but thought that would be even more "bitey" than putting it up for discussion here to see what consensus arises. Montanabw (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify as things currently stand. I suspect a really good article could be written about this topic (has anyone checked to make sure we don't have anything at a different title?), but this is of such low quality that it's inappropriate to keep in mainspace. I certainly echo Elmidae's concerns about getting lost there, and I would encourage notes left at any WikiProjects that might be interested. Another reasonable option would be to cut this down to a stub and keep in mainspace; that would even better than what's here now. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 15:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I have made more than one search for an existing page. The closest I found was Horses in the United States. That has something to say about native Americans but suggesting that they are or were exclusive and subsidiary subjects of the United States would be somewhat controversial and so it would be better to cover them separately, as is done here. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
(as added above) There's also Plains_Indians#The_horse, which has more substantial overlap. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve or draftify - This article was written by a student editor as a Wiki Edu Foundation-supported assignment. It needs a lot of work, but that is not a reason to delete. The subject is obviously notable. Netherzone ( talk) 15:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I made some improvements to the article. Ample sources already listed in the article. Here is a link for those super lazy. Native_Americans_and_horses#References Obviously the relationship between native Americans and horses is quite notable, it brought about massive change. Dream Focus 16:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    The problem is that this is someone’s term paper, and I’d give it a “C” at best. The creator fou d sources, but misunderstood what the sources said, uses them out of context, put undue weight on certain tribal groups, and added a ton of unsourced commentary. I just now went through it, deleted the worst bits, and tagged a bunch of the problems if someone really wants to fix things. Montanabw (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify/Merge This could be a reasonable concept to have an article on, but still far too much is unsourced, or are quite generic statements about the use of horses that can apply to any culture beyond Native Americans lumped together. Per Elmidae, Plains_Indians#The_horse is a suitable place for this topic, and it would be best merged there, then split as reasonable. Reywas92 Talk 18:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Nominator supports draftification or merge this article needs WEEKS of work to fix. I would support moving it back to draft space, and then removing most of the inaccurate and cringeworthy material. Yes, there are sources, but even the sources need to be assessed critically and in context. I suppose TNT was a pretty drastic suggestion, but getting it out of mainspace (and searches) and into draft space is a good solution Montanabw (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Dream Focus, I don’t oppose removing all the junk and reducing it to a much shorter article, or merging into the Plains Indians article’s horse section. I kind of tag-bombed all the problems, and they aren’t easily fixable just by adding a citation to what is already badly-written and poorly understood material, so the content so tagged should be removed until it can be rewritten. I did ping the Equine and Indigenous people Wikiprojects. Montanabw (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
As Montanabw pointed out, most the statements made in Native Americans and horses are factually incorrect and offensively stereotypical. It's mainly gross generations pertaining only to Great Plain tribes during a particular historical period, that is covered by the Horse culture article, which of course would be larger if we expanded it. Yuchitown ( talk) 21:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Yuchitown reply
Horse culture. Yuchitown ( talk)Yuchitown
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 12:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Factor 42

Factor 42 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Drome. Exactly the same applies here - it's essentially the same people, and the same poor sources with no real coverage. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 06:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:49, 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. Tone 06:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Chardonnay (name)

Chardonnay (name) (  | 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 name, no one notable on WP with this name. We are not an import of The great big book of baby names Reywas92 Talk 06:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:22, 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 speedy deleted, salted. Re-affirming prior deletion. Non-notable. Unambiguous WP:BLP violation. El_C 02:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Punta Gorda bus fight

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

This article already deleted under A7 Looplips ( talk) 04:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

​

  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The nominator agreed yesterday to stop nominating articles for CSD and AfD. He agreed he did not have enough experience. So something needs to be done. A school bus fight in 2005 is not news unless it has further consequences for the participants or the community concerned.   -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    Whiteguru, The nominator didn't even provide a valid deletion rationale in this case (that previous iterations were deleted (for whatever reason) doesn't explain why this one should be). If it wasn't for the subsequent participation of others, this would have been eligible for speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. Adam9007 ( talk) 01:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Not withstanding how this was nominated, the way the page creator is trying to influence a keep (and the sockpuppetry demonstrated below) pretty well disqualifies this from a SK1 at this point. Nate • ( chatter) 02:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep THIS IS NOTABLE! I’m trying to introduce the bus fight to Wikipedia. I’ve included sources, including from MSNBC and CNN. This is unfair. Instead of trying to delete the article, maybe work on it more. I vote keep again. — PuntaGorda1 ( talk) 16:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User:PuntaGorda1 has voted twice, so I've struck through their second vote. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 16:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There are sources covering the fight. It's even covered by CNN and MSNBC (as shown in the video by Contessa Brewer). I've included sources. This one is a good example. It talks about how it overdramatize the news. Another good example is this one. which shows other school violence incidents during the 2004 - 2005 school year. It proves that those two boys attended Punta Gorda Middle School. There is time to save this article before it gets deleted. -- PuntaGorda1 ( talk) 18:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment These two "boys" are about to be in their 30s in the next year or so. Kids get into trouble all the time, and this should not permanently memorialized on Wikipedia! Please read WP:BLP about why we aren't going to keep this. Nate • ( chatter) 20:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Comment We could educate readers and Wikipedians about what happened that day @ Mrschimpf:. That’s why this article was created. (redacted link to a mugshot. Nate • ( chatter) 21:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)) — PuntaGorda1 ( talk) 21:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Please. Stop. Now! And immediately read WP:BLP. I don't know if you're out to ruin the lives of these people, but we are not going to link to anything that violates BLP. This entire article is a BLP violation and needs to go. Nate • ( chatter) 21:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
          • There is the article AC Transit Bus fight @ Mrschimpf:. If the AC Transit Bus fight can have a article, so can the Punta Gorda bus fight. This article can stay and improvements can be made to the article before it gets deleted. We can give the Punta Gorda bus fight article a chance. There is time to save the article from deletion. Copyediting would be a good start. If no improvements can be made, it can be deleted. -- PuntaGorda1 ( talk) 01:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
            • All of the charges involved with this incident have either been dropped, or long expired. I repeat again; WP:BLP is a serious matter. You have actually redirected the names of the subjects involved to this article, which I am asking for speedy deletion on. This had no long term effect on the city of Punta Gorda, its school system, or Charlotte County, Florida. No case law was established because of this incident. The latter link should be deleted too, but it at least pushed out a Hollywood film, so I have no cause to delete that myself. Stop ceasing on continuing to push this story. Nate • ( chatter) 01:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- fundamentally unencyclopedic. Reyk YO! 19:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not important, sources don't show sustained coverage. Creator is likely a sock and is definitely spamming other articles with WP:UNDUE content about this. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is very notable. Details and accurate sources were provided. If AC Transit Bus fight can have an article, so can the Punta Gorda bus fight. The Punta Gorda bus fight received coverage on CNN, MSNBC, and NBC. There even is a video from MSNBC's Contessa Brewer regarding the fight. We can educate readers and Wikipedians about the bus fight that occurred in 2005. This article should definitely be kept. -- PuntaGorda1 (alt) ( talk) 01:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Would be surprised if account isn't blocked by now for not being competent of the policies here. – The Grid ( talk) 02:31, 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 06:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Sellicks Springs, California

Sellicks Springs, California (  | 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 fourth in a set of "springs" entered as settlements from Durham that by all other evidence is actually a spring. GNIS didn't know about this one, which is a little surprising given its size, but I did find a map whose key gave its location. Other than that, I get exactly the data I find on every other spring in the state. Mangoe ( talk) 03:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:48, 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. Tone 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Linked Lakes

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

Not a notable company. BroadbandNow is a directory site that isn't sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. I can't find anything else on Google. From their own (very bare-bones) website, there is a banned Twitter profile and a LinkedIn profile that says the company was founded last year. I'm slightly concerned the company doesn't exist in any meaningful way. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

BroadbandNow pulls coverage maps from FCC Form 477. — CardFume ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I completely understand that, but they have to legally file a Form 477 through the FCC to be listed on BroadbandNow - CardFume ( talk) 02:57, 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 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Miller, California

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

Mistakenly called a community on the basis of the unreliable GNIS database. The name appeared on the 1914 USGS topo map but has since disappeared. Durhams calls it a locality on the Northwestern Pacific RR named after a nearby rancher. No other evidence that this was ever a community and no indication that it is otherwise notable Glendoremus ( talk) 03:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus ( talk) 03:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus ( talk) 03:50, 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. Tone 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Secret Springs, California

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

Another "it's actually really a spring" case. The only mentions of this that say anything about it so describe it, and nobody claims it to be a town. I cannot get a definite location for it, nor anything but the barest mention of it, so I do not think it a notable landform. Mangoe ( talk) 03:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:50, 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. czar 05:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Centro Panamericano de Investigación e Innovación

Centro Panamericano de Investigación e Innovación (  | 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 more than 10 Years old and there is not much in the internet about it. https://cepii.wordpress.com is the internet presence of the centre. The other pages mentioning it, are mostly mainly mentioning it or a copy/translation of the wikipedia article Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 03:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 15:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG. The Banner  talk 18:42, 17 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 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Children's Paradise School

Children's Paradise School (  | 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:NORG. There are no detailed references or even government stats pages to be found on this school. 0 hits on gbooks, only passing mentions on gnews John from Idegon ( talk) 02:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:52, 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 keep. Tone 06:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Boris Petrovitch Njegosh

Boris Petrovitch Njegosh (  | 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 supposed heir to a pretender is not necessarily notable, we don't know that he will keep up the claim. PatGallacher ( talk) 01:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:51, 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 keep. North America 1000 05:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Bernhard, Hereditary Prince of Baden

Bernhard, Hereditary Prince of Baden (  | 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, mostly routine genealogy. PatGallacher ( talk) 00:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Changed to Keep as shown by DWC LR easily passes WP:GNG. VocalIndia ( talk) 10:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Bernhard, Hereditary Prince of Baden:
- Hereditary Prince of Baden and thus heir to the headship of the house of Baden and the titles of Margrave of Baden, Duke of Zähringen.
- Estate manager.
- Manager of the margravine wineries.
- Key participant in the negotiations with the German Federal Republic about transfering a number of assest historically owned by the grand ducal family to the German State.
- judging from the illustration to the article a participant in various local events in Baden-Württemberg. Oleryhlolsson ( talk) 22:26, 16 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) 02:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Mane Magalu

Mane Magalu (  | 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 to support it's notability claim in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, youtube videos and the one review already mentioned. DEPRODed for "has an online review so there may be more offline", which is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I couldn't find any...maybe with this AfD someone will. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:13, 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) 02:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

C17H19NO3 (musical project)

C17H19NO3 (musical project) (  | 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 band, created by a user who's been cranking out non-notable band pages lately (currently indeffed). Of the five sources, the two AllMusic pages are just track listings, Hands of Ruin and Sonic Boom don't look reliable, and Lollipop Magazine only mentions the band in one or two sentences. Everything else my WP:BEFORE turned up was blogs. Nothing notable here. Hog Farm Bacon 00:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:07, 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.
  1. ^ The Bark Editors. Chinese Gov Proposes to Reclassify Dogs and Ban Dog Meat Trade. April 2020. The Bark. Accessed September 10. 2020.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_September_11&oldid=979919884"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE