From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 August 15 August >
Guide to deletion

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 redirect to Richie Rich (rapper)#Discography. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Nixon Pryor Roundtree

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

AllMusic page is just a track listing and a handful of user-generated review [1]. Beyond that I've finding user-generated sources such as discogs and rateyourmusic, sales sites, download sites (including some that may be violating copyright). The information here is taken from Wikipedia. Not finding anything that would really indicate a WP:NALBUM pass, although others may have better luck than me. Hog Farm Bacon 23:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 23:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 23:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Nickelodeon crossovers

List of Nickelodeon crossovers (  | 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 yet another example of WP:FANCRUFT dominating Wikipedia as this article also has had multiple issues dating back to March 2016 that, if fixed, wouldn’t be enough to save this article from deletion. Pahiy ( talk) 23:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy ( talk) 23:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation deletion discussions. Pahiy ( talk) 23:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 04:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart achievements by decade

List of Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart achievements by decade (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extraneous, long list of trivia per WP:IINFO. Almost all sources are simply taken from the artists' chart history pages on Billboard, the primary source for such information. I have concerns with List of Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart achievements and milestones, too, but this is taking what amounts to chart trivia for a secondary chart too far. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator on WP:IINFO. The more comprehensive article at List of Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart achievements and milestones can deliver some useful knowledge to the reader as it covers the top songs of all time, etc., and that article can also show some historical development in trends over time. But this decade-by-decade article is just taking it too far. I will also point out that this type of segmented article creates the problem of duplication when more and more of them are split off the original. When someone discovers interesting chart data from the past, it will have to be added to multiple articles and they will become inconsistent. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I can see an article about the chart, and maybe a spinout for its number ones, but there’s no way it needs two spinout articles about “achievements”, let alone one. Delete them both, and mention any notable achievements at the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Another trivial list. desmay ( talk) 13:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1. Nomination withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Dps04 ( talk) 08:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Café Allegro

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

NCORP fail. Withdrawn, see comment below. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • keep I started this article and added more sources. The sources say
    • This is the oldest coffeehouse in Seattle, see also Coffee in Seattle
    • This is the single coffeehouse which Starbucks credits as the origin of their way of making coffee
    • The coffeehouse is periodically in the news for renovations and community issues, which is not media coverage which comes from typical coffeehouses.
The available sources present this place as something other than a typical coffeehouse. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

White carrot

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

White carrot is a disambiguation page including carrot, daikon, and parsnip. I see no evidence that either daikon or parsnips are commonly called "white carrot", though it is often said they look alike. DAB pages are supposed to be for alternate names, not similar things. The comment for parsnip mentions that in Arabic and Hebrew, its name means 'white carrot'. But this is not the Arabic or Hebrew WP; we are interested in the English name. Macrakis ( talk) 21:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  • It would appear that the daikon and parsnip aren't called "white carrot" in English, but the arracacha, not currently listed on the page, is apparently sometimes called just that. And there are proper carrots that are white [2], so this means we've got two probably good entries. If they're good enough, and we don't have a primary topic... – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • WITHDRAWN. Fair enough, though I'm not sure that that name (a translation from the Spanish) is actually much used in English. I've added it to the article, removed the deletion notice, and moved daikon and parsnip to See also. -- Macrakis ( talk) 22:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Carrot#Cultivars, where it already states: "One particular cultivar lacks the usual orange pigment due to carotene, owing its white colour to a recessive gene for tocopherol (vitamin E) ..." per WP:TWODABS. Then add a redirect hatnote to Arracacha. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and hat per Clarityfiend. Good call, since the term in English will most likely suggest to readers a carrot that is white. BD2412 T 04:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Agreed about the redirect, but it should probably go to the top of the Carrot article, since the article says that carrots in the Old English period were typically white, so not just the cultivar. -- Macrakis ( talk) 13:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Do not redirect. I've already suggested above that a dab page may be viable, but I would like to note now that redirecting is not. The white carrots mentioned here and there at Carrot are not some specific cultivar, these are just different kinds of carrots that so happen to be white. We should have redirects for specific terms, not for arbitrary adjective + noun combinations, we don't have corresponding redirects for white dogs or for brown cows. And I really don't like the idea of having a major article like Carrot adorned with hatnotes for extremely obscure uses (probably more obscure than I thought when writing my previous comment: there are only 7 hits on google for the search arracacha + "white carrot" so it's becoming suspicious that our article Arracacha should mention that as an alternative name). The two viable options that I see are 1) keeping the dab page (nothing wrong with an obscure page listing obscure uses), or deleting it altogether and letting readers use the search engine (for those looking for non-carrot-related plants described as "white carrots" in articles), or their common sense (those looking for whiteness in actual carrots could simply read the article at Carrot). – Uanfala (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
This Bioversity International PGR Newsletter article states "in English it is known as arracacha, white carrot, Peruvian carrot and Peruvian parsnip" and there's an agronomy article titled " In vitro multiplication of five cultivars of white carrot (Arracacia xanthorrhiza Bancroft) collected in Venezuela" published under the auspices(?) of the Universidad Centroccidental Lisandro Alvarado. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, bearing in mind the nom has withdrawn it anyway. It's not a disambiguation page, it's a set index article, and there's nothing structurally or substantively wrong with it that would justify deletion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chess prodigy#Youngest to defeat a Grandmaster. T. Canens ( talk) 04:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hetul Shah

Hetul Shah (  | 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:1EVENT Roller26 ( talk) 21:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 21:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 ( talk) 21:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

edit: Agree that redirect is better. -Abhishikt ( talk) 08:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Chess_prodigy#Youngest_to_defeat_a_Grandmaster, a section I created in direct response to this AfD. Becoming the youngest to defeat a GM in a standard tournament game brought widespread coverage so he unquestionably meets GNG, the issue is whether per the nominator he fails N1EVENT. It's arguable he doesn't as he was also selected for the 2011 World Chess Championship [3] but as he appears to be no longer active there is not much opportunity for any further expansion of a stand-alone article. P-K3 ( talk) 14:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Agree with P-K3, but does it make sense to use List of world records in chess for this purpose, rather than Chess prodigy? Bruce leverett ( talk) 16:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Possibly, except that Shah is indisputably no longer the record holder, and that list seems to generally list the current holders. P-K3 ( talk) 16:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Turning Point USA#Formation and activities; I have separately taken the editorial action of redirecting and leaving the very limited mergeable content under the redirect. Stifle ( talk) 11:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Bill Montgomery (Turning Point USA)

Bill Montgomery (Turning Point USA) (  | 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 fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:POVFORK, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:V since there is no corroborating information other than a news source that claims this person was registered as a founder of Turning Point USA. Atsme Talk 📧 21:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
He is clearly notable, as can be shown by the multiple WP:RS reporting his death and political career. Multiple WP:RS also describe him as a co-founder. -- The Anome ( talk) 23:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I urge you to review the sources and consider the depth of misinformation in those news sources. Think about why media juxtaposed that man's death with Turning Point USA - that is not what an encyclopedia publishes, and it certainly doesn't pass WP:10YT. Some of the cited media TOTALLY misrepresented the facts. There is not even one RS that corroborates or even factually verifies that Montgomery's death was from COVID-19. The best we can do is cite 2 friends on social media. Montgomery worked behind the scenes for Turning Point USA handling the bookwork. He was a mentor who encouraged young conservatives during his retirement years. There is nothing notable about volunteering one's services to a nonprofit organization, and there is certainly nothing notable about dying from covid complications at age 80; that is sad, not notable. Notability is not inherited, either, so his association with Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA doesn't automatically make him notable. Atsme Talk 📧 05:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
We have multiple reliable sources stating that he died of COVID-19. For example: [4], [5]. -- The Anome ( talk) 17:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Anything that verfies the claim made about being candidate? Djflem ( talk) 21:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Nothing that I could find. Atsme Talk 📧 22:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
You can be notable even if you are not a legislative candidate. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 10:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Emir of Wikipedia: But you cannot claim to be a legislative candidate if your are not a legislative candidate, as this article does. Can you provide a RS that conforms with the pillar of verifiability? Djflem ( talk) 14:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I think it might have been a mix-up with Bill Montgomery (Arizona politician). -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 15:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Good catch, Emir. I went and ahead and removed it; however, I'm of the mind that WP:BIO1E also applies in this case. Turning Point USA has many volunteers, and as I've stated above Montgomery would have remained relatively unknown were it not for his death to COVID-19. The majority of COVID deaths have been in the ≥65 population. There are many people who have given Kirk advice and/or contributed financially to TPUSA, but WP requires more than that to establish notability, and dying of COVID-19 does not fit that requirement per WP:NOTNEWS, Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) The coverage is more about Kirk and Turning Point USA than about Montgomery. Atsme Talk 📧 00:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Seagull123
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
1 - The Bulwark (website) Yes ? I've never heard of this website before, so I can't say if this is a reliable source or not No One brief mention of Montgomery in the article ✘ No
2 - POLITICO Yes Yes No Doesn't appear to mention Montgomery at all ✘ No
3 - POLITICO Yes Yes Yes Article about his death; it does dedicate quite a lot of writing to Charlie Kirk and his thoughts on masks/coronavirus, however ✔ Yes
4 - Washington Examiner Yes Yes Apart from appearing to deny climate change; I haven't seen anything that makes me think this website isn't an RS ~ Article about Charlie Kirk, discusses Montgomery in relation to how he "discovered" Kirk ~ Partial
5 - Crain's Chicago Business Yes Yes No Brief mention of Montgomery as how he "handles paperwork—“the old guy who keeps it all legal,”" ✘ No
6 - The Atlantic Yes Yes ~ Mainly about Kirk, but does discuss in some length Montgomery's role ~ Partial
7 - Fox News Yes ? Per WP:RSP, there's no consensus on Fox's reliability on political matters Yes About his death ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. The creator has requested this article be moved to Drafts so they can attempt further development. (non-admin closure)   //  Timothy ::  talk  20:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Marciano Curiel Merchán

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. From WP:NPEOPLE: "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"". Source in the article and WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. None of their achievements meets WP:NACADEMIC.   //  Timothy ::  talk  21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Dear Timothy, I understand why Curiel Merchán may be considered non-notable on the English Wikipedia site. Of course, as a Spanish folklorist he is unsurprisingly better known in Spain (see Spanish Wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marciano_Curiel_Merchán). As you kindly suggested on my user talk page, perhaps it would be best to move this English page to the draft space, not delete it entirely.
Apologies for adding, I wanted to expand the number of Mexican/Spanish biographies on the English site. He is definitely interesting,just better-known in Spain.
Thank you, intoto99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intoto99 ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reply: Hi Intoto99 I hope you continue to work on this article and would support moving it to Draft if you think it can be improved. I looked at Spanish Wikipedia before nom and didn't see any sources, but I'm open to the idea there might be sources I can't find. I agree expanding the number of Spanish bios here is a very worthwhile goal and hope you continue here. We lack individuals with your perspective and skills and I know you would be a very welcome contributor. Best wishes and greetings from El Pueblo de la Reina de los Angeles.   //  Timothy ::  talk  20:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Holly Maples

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

Nonnotable actress, this article which fails WP:GNG also multiple issues that back a decade. Pahiy ( talk) 20:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pahiy ( talk) 20:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Pahiy ( talk) 20:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 04:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

P B Lahkar Para High School

P B Lahkar Para 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)

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT ( WP:NSCHOOL) sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Article itself makes no claim of notability.   //  Timothy ::  talk  20:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  20:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  20:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  20:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

John Pappas

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

Mostly autobiographical, none of the sources provided show the subject meets WP:GNG. Many/most of the assertions in the article are unsourced or not verified by the sources provided. The two Los Angeles Times articles at the bottom of the page only have passing mentions of Pappas, nothing in-depth to meet GNG. The previous AFD for John Pappas was for a separate individual, an American football player. Eagles  24/7  (C) 20:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 20:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 20:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 20:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Qoob chip

Qoob chip (  | 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 GameCube modchip. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

At one point, this was turned into a redirect, I nominated it for deletion as one, but it was restored as an article. Pinging everyone who contributed in that discussion: @ Tavix, @ Thryduulf. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Majid Jawad Kadhim Al Zerg

Majid Jawad Kadhim Al Zerg (  | 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 pass WP:GNG. The Iraqi Premier League is not fully-professional, and the player has not played for a senior national team; he does not pass WP:NFOOTY. Nehme1499 ( talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 ( talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 ( talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 ( talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme1499 ( talk) 19:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 04:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Moksha (2020 film)

Moksha (2020 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)

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jithin Majeed. Not notable. Article created by individual abusing multiple accounts on Wikimedia projects (Sockpuppetry proven and confirmed by CUs on English Wikipedia and on Commons), who has for goal to create articles and uploading media files related to a "Jithin Majeed". Ìch heiss Nat.  Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ìch heiss Nat.  Redd mìt mìr.🥨 19:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Javed Riaz

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

New music director; however, he only composed the score for one film and this is a case of WP:Too early. TamilMirchi ( talk) 18:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 18:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 18:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 18:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Geologic time scale#Proposed Precambrian timeline. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Zirconian

Zirconian (  | 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 am proposing deletion of this page on the grounds of WP:SIGCOV. A Google and Scholar search returns no relevant results (other than the Wikipedia article itself, or copies of). It is only defined in passing as a proposed geologic era of the hadean in Van Kranendonk et al. (2012) [1] and Ogg et al. (2016) [2] (which is mostly a concise version of Van Kranendonk et al. 2012). It has not received any coverage since then. The proposed Precambrian timeline is already outlined in the geologic time page. That section can be added to if needed to provide a little more information about the proposed time divisions, although it is sufficient in its current state. When defined by Van Kranendonk et al. (2012) an alternate name of Jack Hillsian was proposed. It has not been ratified by the IUGS/ICS and they changed the frequency (and way) of publication of the geologic time scale as outlined in 2013 [3]. Should the Zirconian era ever be officially ratified then a page for itself would be warranted, as it would become notable in the geologic literature.

In terms of other widespread coverage, aside from only one notable source mentioning it, it isn't used in geologic literature or education currently as use of the ICS official chart [ [6]] is required for publications in peer reviewed journals. Jarred C Lloyd ( talk) 14:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Van Kranendonk, Martin J.; Contributors; Altermann, Wladyslaw; Beard, Brian L.; Hoffman, Paul F.; Johnson, Clark M.; Kasting, James F.; Melezhik, Victor A.; Nutman, Allen P. (2012), "A Chronostratigraphic Division of the Precambrian", The Geologic Time Scale, Elsevier, pp. 299–392, doi: 10.1016/b978-0-444-59425-9.00016-0, ISBN  978-0-444-59425-9, retrieved 2020-08-06 {{ citation}}: |last2= has generic name ( help)
  2. ^ Ogg, James G.; Ogg, Gabi M.; Gradstein, Felix M. (2016), "Precambrian", A Concise Geologic Time Scale, Elsevier, pp. 19–28, doi: 10.1016/b978-0-444-59467-9.00003-0, ISBN  978-0-444-63771-0, retrieved 2020-08-06
  3. ^ Cohen, K.M.; Finney, S.C.; Gibbard, P.L.; Fan, J.-X. (2013-09-01). "The ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart". Episodes. 36 (3): 199–204. doi: 10.18814/epiiugs/2013/v36i3/002. ISSN  0705-3797.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham ( talk) 21:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Support. GeoWriter ( talk) 11:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify, I interpret this as support to delete the article? - Kj cheetham ( talk) 15:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, support for deletion. GeoWriter ( talk) 20:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 04:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Ludwig Nunoo

Ludwig Nunoo (  | 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 non-notable media presenter. The article is heavily refbombed, but the references are either primary sources or do not contain significant coverage of the subject. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I will salt. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Trippy Ja Productions

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

complete vanity spam, nothing but fake sources (black hat seo) and press releases. let's just put the final nail in the coffin. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trippy Ja Productions, Draft:Trippy Ja Praxidicae ( talk) 18:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and Salt because nothing's changed since it was deleted less than 24 hours ago except the addition of another press release, and because the creator clearly isn't convinced by deletions to not simply re-make an identical article. — {Cryptic Canadian} 00:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. But let's take this to a seven-day conclusion before adding sodium chloride and silver nitrate to deal with this zombie. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • This is still an A7 IMO. Five million streams (even assuming that's true; Spotify's API says it was only about a quarter of that, totaled over all songs since release) doesn't really mean much; actually-notable artists get hundreds of millions of streams per song, and the 1.3 million I could verify only pays out a few thousand dollars. "Catching the attention of Warner Music and FrtyFve" (whatever that is) isn't a significance claim either. Sources in the article are three labeled press releases and one unlabeled one; the ones that I spot-checked in the draft weren't any better. — Cryptic 22:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mz7 ( talk) 19:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Elmer Pendell

Elmer Pendell (  | 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 potentially non-notable eugenicist. I am seeking consensus on this, as notability has been tagged since 2012, the issue is highly charged, and I'm genuinely on the fence. I have just added the best sources I could find, and I'm not sure they're enough for WP:GNG. (I seriously doubt WP:NPROF is viable as a criterion.) I am unable to verify the newspaper sources previously cited, though perhaps someone with access to more newspapers could. I genuinely welcome any comments. A speedy was quite reasonably declined back in 2012. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 17:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 17:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 17:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ F. G. Brooks (December 1942). "Book Reviews: Society under Analysis by Elmer Pendell". Bios. 13 (4): 269. JSTOR  4604713.
  2. ^ Paul H. Landis (February 1946). "Book Reviews: Population Roads to Peace or War. by Guy Irving Burch, Elmer Pendell". American Sociological Review. 11 (1): 125–126. JSTOR  2085295.
  3. ^ Bentley Glass (March 1946). "Book Reviews: Population Roads to Peace or War. by Guy Irving Burch, Elmer Pendell". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 21 (1): 128. JSTOR  2808715.
  4. ^ Lee R. Dice (November–December 1947). "Reviews and Comments: Human Breeding and Survival: Population Roads to Peace or War. by Guy Irving Burch, Elmer Pendell". The American Naturalist. 81 (801): 461–462. JSTOR  2457761.
  5. ^ Frank H. Hankins (December 1951). "Book Reviews: Human Fertility: The Modern Dilemma. by Robert C. Cook, Julian Huxley; Population on the Loose. by Elmer Pendell, Walter B. Pitkin". Social Forces. 30 (2): 238–240. JSTOR  2571643.
  6. ^ Wilbert E. Moore (June 1952). "Book Reviews: Population on the Loose by Elmer Pendell". The American Economic Review. 42 (3): 481–482. JSTOR  1810440.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article deleted by TomStar81 per CSD A7 and CSD G4. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 01:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Kojo Yankson

AfDs for this article:
Kojo Yankson (  | 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/Kojo Yankson (2nd nomination). Non-notable radio announcer. Already found non-notable once. If notability is based on experience since 2016, please obtain copy of deleted article for comparison. Awards listed were covered by previous deletion discussion. Google search shows mostly obvious social media coverage, and also churnalism that he is famous for being famous. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Wood County Monitor. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Wood County Democrat

Wood County Democrat (  | 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 seems to be a small local newspaper that doesn't seem to pass WP:NMEDIA. It seems to have joined with another newspaper in 2016 and became the Wood County Monitor. So, as an alternative to deletion it could be merged into that article. Since merging to the publisher or an equivalent sister newspaper is mentioned as a possible outcome for non-notable newspapers in the notability guidelines. Although, the guideline has the caveat that what it is being merged to has to be notability itself and Wood County Monitor doesn't seem to be, but I'll leave it up to others to decide if it's the best option anyway. Adamant1 ( talk) 02:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 04:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 04:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Wood County Monitor. Having some history about the target publication would be helpful in expanding that article; its notability can be assessed in an appropriate venue in the future. For now, sub-stub standalone articles for the predecessor publications seem unnecessary. Given that, I would boldly suggest to merge Mineola Monitor as well. -- Kinu  t/ c 01:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord ( talk) 17:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Shauna Glenn

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR notability. The only independent and reliable source I could find on her was this non-significant mention.

It seems she is an interior designer now, but the article is almost completely unsourced and I cannot find reliable/significant coverage of her or her work. (Article has also been tagged for notability since 2009) Whisperjanes ( talk) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes ( talk) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes ( talk) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes ( talk) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes ( talk) 16:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 12:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Wahdat

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

Newspaper Wahdat is not notable, no media links found, no references in Google News hence it is not passing WP:GNG. Memon KutianaWala ( talk) 12:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Memon KutianaWala ( talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Memon KutianaWala ( talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib:, that reference, like the ones I already mentioned and others that are available in GBooks and GNews, is only a passing reference to establish existence. Notability requires more than simple one-sentence summaries. Thank you for the ping. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC) edited to add: And, just for the record, I don't consider fifteen nominations in 11 months a "reckless deletion spree". I suggest that a review of WP:NPA might be in order. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Eggishorn: WP:NMEDIA states Notability is presumed for newspapers, (1) if have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history, (2) are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets, (3) are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area. This newspaper meets all these criteria easily. I still feel the nominator of this AfD is on deletion spree. The reason if he himself has been creating BLPs on non-notable figures ( Misbah Mumtaz, Bin Swelah) yet marking BLPs on notable subjects ( Iffat Rahim) for deletion. Doesn't sounds strange to you? -- Saqib ( talk) 08:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib:, please provide any evidence that you are aware of that justifies this paper meeting those criteria. At the present time, neither the article itself nor this AfD discussion have produced any evidence of meeting those criteria. Simple assertions of passing NMEDIA are not enough. Also, I will put this more clearly: stating that another editor is on a "deletion spree" despite having been pointed out that a very, very low number of deletion nominations have been made is grounds for blocking under WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. Please do not do this again or continue to attempt justifying this statement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Eggishorn: This newspaper was founded in 1976 which means criteria # 2 of WP:NMEDIA is met. Secondly, Pakistan's reputable daily Dawn (newspaper) cites Daily Wahdat as a source (links below) which means criteria #3 and # 4 are met.-- Saqib ( talk) 15:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Saqib:, the mere existence of a media outlet for 44 years in no way demonstrates that it satisfies: "historic purpose or ...a significant history". The mere reprinting of stories in another outlet is likewise neither evidence of being "...considered by reliable sources to be authoritative..." nor being "...frequently cited by other reliable sources." You need to stop treating NMEDIA as a checklist to be met by whatever weak evidence and bland assertions you can muster and instead read the entire notability standard. At the very top it states: This page is not one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines; ...A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Even the Criteria section that you keep referring to states: ...meeting one or more does not guarantee that a topic should be included. It is especially glaring that in trying to meet the criterion of "frequently cited" you produced only three simple reprints. I suggest that instead of trying to argue here it would be more useful to the project and your goal of saving this article to improve the article from its current state. If you can find the sources to provide a thorough rewrite (i.e., WP:HEYMANN) that will go much farther to arguing for a Keep than anything you've yet said here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Now the promotional puffery and unsourced content has all been removed, there's nothing left other than "It's a newspaper". The article contains no sources other than the newspaper's official site. I can't find any significant coverage, other than pages simply saying it exists and is a newspaper/e-newspaper, so I'm not seeing enough for notability. That's searching for "wahdat newspaper" in English, and if anyone can unearth any other language sources I'll be happy to reconsider my recommendation. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hallucinogenic mushroom

Hallucinogenic mushroom (  | 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 needs to be deleted. A hallucinogenic mushroom is just a mushroom containing hallucinogens. The two words do not have any special meaning when combined — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberking321 ( talk • contribs) 13:46, August 14, 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep Discussion page was created without the {{ afd2}} template. Fixed now. As for my own opinion, this appears to be a useful disambiguation page. Improvements could theoretically be made on how articles around the topic are organized, but deletion would be counterproductive. -- Finngall talk 16:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Finngall, whilst it may be true that the words do not have any 'special meaning', if a user were to search using the the colloquialism, the disambiguation page would certainly be useful. I also note that the same page was marked for proposed deletion by Saberking exactly one week ago here [7] and was quickly reverted here [8]. Wampagranule ( talk) 18:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Cloudflare. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Matthew Prince

Matthew Prince (  | 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 independently notable of Cloudflare; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up are mentions related to company announcements and other WP:SPIP sources. Sources used in the article are user-generated databases. Does not meet WP:BASIC. K.e.coffman ( talk) 13:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Cloudflare: The subject is not notable and the sources I found published about him focus on said company or are talking about his opinions, but not about him specifically. Username 6892 14:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Lack significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. - Hatchens ( talk) 14:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm tempted to suggest this because the org he founded seems to have a load of spammers who isssue spam from it, but that woold not be a policy based opinion. He is just a man running a business for profit. So are many tens of thousands of other people, male and female alike. If he ever becomes notable in his own right he may have an article. Notability cannot be inherited from his company. Fails every notability test Fiddle Faddle 14:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 04:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Ismail Hashim Taher

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based unverified claims. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 13:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 13:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 13:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mostafa Anwar (director). T. Canens ( talk) 04:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Abujh Hridoy

Abujh Hridoy (  | 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 film doesn't appear notable. Only citation is about the director dying and I failed to find any in-depth reviews that it would need to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM in a WP:BEFORE. Only things that I found were directory listings and youtube videos. Donaldd23 ( talk) 13:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 13:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 13:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Adrianne White

Adrianne White (  | 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 model with absolutely no coverage in reliable sources, every single thing I can find is a press release or black hat SEO source. Praxidicae ( talk) 13:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. As far as I'm concerned, this counts as a delete, unless the article is improved and approved at AfC; however, I will generally draftify a deleted article if asked on my talk page, and, so, draftifying it at this stage is simply streamlining the process. Salvio 12:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Daniel Bochner

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. The article was previously speedily deleted in 2014 and has since been recreated even though he still fails the guidelines. Neither the Israeli or Serbian leagues qualify for NHOCKEY notability regardless of games played or honours achieved while Israel have never played in the top level of the World Championship. Tay87 ( talk) 12:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Tay87 reply

EDIT - While he certainly fails as a player, if his current coaching role grants notability then this can be withdrawn. Tay87 ( talk) 12:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC) reply

William R. Gruber

AfDs for this article:
William R. Gruber (  | 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 was nominated for deletion in 2014. While his rank of Brigadier General satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER that is only a presumption that "they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" however that is not the case here and so he fails WP:GNG Mztourist ( talk) 12:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 12:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly notable per WP:SOLDIER, which is generally held as being the standard notability guideline for general officers (despite its status as an essay). Consensus is clearly to keep officers of this rank per that guideline. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Response Consensus changes. WP:COMMONSENSE (which I know you're a big fan of) requires that for a military person to have a page on WP any reader should be able to immediately recognize that s/he won/did/led/commanded/developed/wrote [something militarily notable]. The presumption in WP:SOLDIER is that in reaching flag rank or in that flag rank that person did some notable things(s) which received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. However for many one stars and some two stars that simply isn't the case, they just got promoted without achieving anything that anyone would regard as notable. You clearly believe that just achieving flag rank is inherently notable, I don't if they don't also have SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist ( talk) 18:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Indeed I do. I believe that getting to the top of a profession generally makes one inherently notable. After all, we classify sportspeople as inherently notable if they have played in a single top-level game or competed once in a top-level tournament (even if they got nowhere) and pop starlets as inherently notable if they have had a single moderately successful one-hit wonder (even if they subsequently disappeared from anyone's radar). I don't think it's unreasonable to also consider people who have got to the top of professions which are actually useful as inherently notable, even if their professions generate nowhere near so much internet fodder. We don't want Wikipedia to be known only as a repository of pop, internet and social media culture and sports, do we? It's getting far too much that way anyway. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Obviously I disagree. Deflecting by comparing notability criteria in other areas is apples and oranges. I certainly agree that sportspeople who play in a single top-level game/tournament are not notable, however even a one-hit wonder must have sold thousands of copies of a record/download so temporarily playing a part in thousands of people's lives and creating a somewhat enduring legacy, thus achieving a far wider impact than a one-star with no legacy at all who would otherwise be completely forgotten except by those they served with. Getting to the bottom rung of flag rank doesn't make the holder inherently notable if they did nothing notable in getting there and do nothing notable while they're there. Look at Gruber, what did he do? No notable commands, battles, awards, just went for a drive with Eisenhower, that's it. Why do we need pages for that? Mztourist ( talk) 07:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Necrothesp and because reducing Wikipedia to a collection of stuff that'e easy to find with Gooogle searches is a damfool idea. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 14:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete normally I would vote keep for a brigadier general, but he doesn't seem to have done anything notable except have some relationship with Ike, and notability isn't inherited. Also generals.dk isn't a RS, and Trout's mentions of him are in passing, so while he might just meet SOLDIER, he doesn't meet GNG because there isn't significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm interested to see these claims that he didn't do anything except know Eisenhower. Presumably being a general commanding divisional artillery in action is doing nothing. Maybe he would have been better employed playing a single professional game of football or singing a song. Now that would be doing something notable! What on earth is Wikipedia coming to? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    • That might have earned him SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist ( talk) 13:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, because pop culture = internet dumping. Whereas useful and distinguished career in a non-pop culture field ≠ internet dumping on anywhere near such a scale but equally does not equal lack of notability. Why is this it not blatantly obvious to some editors? As I said, we are in danger of converting WP overwhelmingly into a repository of pop culture if we obsess too much over coverage at the expense of reasoned consideration of notability. That's not why I joined. Is it really why anyone else joined? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 23:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Has SIGCOV in multiple RS. I quickly found biographical details in Ancell & Miller, and details of his war with the 24th Infantry Division. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The United States military has, currently, nearly a thousand flag officers on active duty, which is more people than any professional sports league, more than every charting musician in the last year, and so on. (Given that the WWII military was forty times larger, we're talking more generals and admirals than any sports league has ever had players in their entire histories.) That Necrothesp is militantly invested in protecting their articles, each and every one, bless their epauletted little hearts, is apparent. However, having a "useful and distinguished career" not only meets no Wikipedia notability guidelines, but it's the same tiresome WP:ITSIMPORTANT/ WP:ILIKEIT argument which we routinely reject for the aforementioned pop culture articles. The fact on the ground is that for all the spirited Defense Of The Encyclopedia here, what Wikipedia is not is a collection of indiscriminate CVs. These are encyclopedia articles, and if there is nothing significant to say about a subject, the subject does not merit one ... whether he be a 1-star in the army or a 1-star in crooning. SIGCOV is just not met here, and I for one would appreciate less rhetoric and more reliable sourcing. Ravenswing 11:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    • If you think that having a distinguished career doesn't meet notability guidelines then frankly I really don't know why we're bothering continuing with this project. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Of course "having a distinguished career" doesn't meet notability guidelines -- notability criteria on Wikipedia are based on fairly specific criteria that has nothing to do with how "distinguished" someone's career might be subjectively claimed to be (an appellation for which, in the case of this subject, you have not submitted a single piece of supporting evidence). We can, no doubt, come up with any number of scoundrels, timeservers and feather merchants who were among the many thousands of officers to gain a star in WWII. We can also identify many outstanding soldiers and heroes who never did. Would you call their careers "undistinguished" in consequence? That being said, as far as whether you feel like bothering to continue with this project, you are the best judge of your own free time. Ravenswing 16:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
        • We need a cutoff point for "inherent" notability. We have decided it is general, flag or air officer rank and their equivalents (just as we have decided that one is notable if one serves in a national or sub-national legislature per WP:POLITICIAN, but not necessarily if one serves on a local council). Those at lower ranks may be notable, but equally may not be; you seem to be suggesting that WP:SOLDIER says they cannot be, but it actually says nothing of the sort. It is irrelevant that some may have been "scoundrels, timeservers and feather merchants". It is a fact that reaching that rank is an indicator of a distinguished career. That's why it appears in WP:SOLDIER, which has been formulated by editors who generally know what they're talking about and has been used for many years. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
          • We certainly need a cutoff, but just being the lowest flag rank isn't it, they must also have SIGCOV in multiple RS. Thats what WP:SOLDIER says. Mztourist ( talk) 13:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
          • Let us consider another point: WP:SOLDIER is an essay. It does not have the validity of black-letter notability criteria, should not be cited as if it did, and absolutely does not overrule legitimate notability criteria such as SIGCOV and the GNG. And beyond that: "It is a fact that reaching that rank is an indicator of a distinguished career." No, that is your opinion. Ravenswing 14:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: WP:NSOLDIER is an essay and in any case a presumption is not a guarantee of notability. In this case he is remembered mostly because of his association with Eisenhower WP:NOTINHERITED. Trout, Steven (May 29, 2012) is just a mention and again because of Ike, none of the others provide WP:SIGCOV and no one has brought up any SIGCOV.   //  Timothy ::  talk  18:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Salvio 12:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Chai Point

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

Purely a promotional article WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. WP:NCORP, and WP:SIGCOV. Hence, Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens ( talk) 11:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 11:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 11:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Clearly falls under WP:PROMO. Does its best to avoid WP:Puffery but per nom seemingly created only for self-promotion. Wampagranule ( talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Devokewater @ 21:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The approach to this Afd is entirely misguided in my opinion. Yes, the article currently looks bullshit (their chai is even worse, trust me), but the company is clearly notable, as I was able to find independent in-depth reliable sources (not the trashy Paid Posts or press releases etc). This Business Standard report calls it "India's largest organized tea retailer". Here's The Ken profile that says it is India's largest tea cafe with 141 stores (numbers usually don't matter for notability but given the extensive reach in a country with a largely home-chai-drinking tradition, the network alone is noteworthy). Here's a Bloomberg Quint story about how they're trying to create a tea cafe culture in India, along with another very popular outlet Chaayos (which has slightly better tea imo!). Here's a The Hindu story on their AI features by an indy reporter as far as I can tell. Same with Livemint, Financial Express, Economic Times. Yes, the usual PR guff might exist, but separate the wheat from the chaff and reliable sources can very easily be found. I've just cited a fraction. Given that it's the largest tea network in India (ignoring the millions of street-side vendors who make infinitely better tea - just saying if you're ever visiting), and that significant and third-party reliable sources can be found (I'm amazed how they didn't turn up in the nom's or voters' searches!), the subject tremendously, justifiably, absolutely and surely passes GNG, NCORP, SIGCOV! If it sounds PROMOTIONAL, then it needs to be fixed. Not deleted. Best regards, MaysinFourty ( talk) 08:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I fully agree with the above assessment. If there is feedback on quality, those need to be added as tags for editors to update. No reason why that can not be done in parallel. Ktin ( talk) 17:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've struck my original vote based on MaysinFourty's contribution. I made a rash decision based on a cursory search, so thanks for doing your research a lot better than I did. I'd now support an overhaul of the sourcing on the page, fixing the promotional element. Wampagranule ( talk) 15:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Of course, the subject of the article is notable. A simple Google search reveals it to be the case. If it seems promotional, it should be modified and improved, not deleted. Stensrim ( talk) 12:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 04:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Elysian Coffee

Elysian Coffee (  | 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 to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No credible citations are available. Hatchens ( talk) 11:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 11:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 11:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Ncorp fail. I saw a total of two sources in a search: the Vancouver Courrier and soemthing called Scout, a sort of web magazine. Not enough. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No indication this is more than a run-of-the- WP:MILL local business with the usual routine local coverage. Reywas92 Talk 02:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    Disagree. WP:MILL has this section for commercial establishments Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Commercial and you can clearly see that a chain such as this one will not fit into any of those categories listed. Ktin ( talk) 02:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This article is modeled on the some of local coffee shops in the region (Pacific North West), as a part of the third wave coffee movement. While this is not an AfD for those specific local coffee shops, none of them have had issues proving WP:GNG for the same reason as this one. The key local coffee shops and roasters on whom this article has been modeled on are as below.
  1. Café Allegro,
  2. Monorail Espresso,
  3. Caffé Vita Coffee Roasting Company,
  4. Stumptown Coffee Roasters,
  5. Blue Bottle Coffee,
  6. Intelligentsia Coffee & Tea
The article does have sources that are independent of this topic and are relevant. Also, special care has been taken to ensure that there is no WP:PROMO by retaining it to be a factual piece.
Yes, this is a local business, and hence will have local sources for references, but, WP:GNG emphasizes the need for a) independent sources b) reliable sources c) significant coverage more than a passing mention -- all of whom are met by this article. Ktin ( talk) 02:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Ktin: Other articles do not matter, as has been explained elsewhere, so maybe stop pasting that list into every AfD? This particular article doesn't meet GNG with two sources. And GNG is not actually the goal her with a business, it's WP:NCORP, which says These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. So there need to be four or five articles with significant coverage. That might happen in another three or four years, but it does not seem to exist now. As stated at the other AFD, the theme of expanding the coverage of third-wave coffee roasters is not relevant here. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 02:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
ThatMontrealIP, I disagree. Both AfDs are very specific to the same theme, and the same premise holds on both cases. Ktin ( talk) 03:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Ktin: The only thing that will save an article like this is adding more good, in-depth sources. Do that and you8 are golden. Administrators have closed hundreds or thousands of discussions like this, and WP:WAX arguments like the one you make above will just be ignored unless the other articles are very, very high quality. To quote WP:WAX, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." If you want to raise global consciousness on third-wave coffee places on the West Coast, in a neural and encyclopedic way, more power to you. But you cannot do it without good sourcing, so I would track those down if they exist. Saying "what about X article or article Y" will not generally help; it is good sources that will help. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 03:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 04:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

49th Parallel Coffee

49th Parallel Coffee (  | 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:NCORP. Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Most of its news coverage comes from paid/sponsored media and PR sites. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens ( talk) 11:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 11:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 11:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Other articles do not matter in deletion discussions. We are only talking about this article, and whether or not it meets our WP:NCORP notability standard for companies. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As mentioned in the previous comment, this article is modeled on the some of local coffee shops in the region (Pacific North West), as a part of the third wave coffee movement. While this is not an AfD for those specific local coffee shops, none of them have had issues. The key local coffee shops and roasters on whom this article has been modeled on are as below.
  1. Café Allegro,
  2. Monorail Espresso,
  3. Caffé Vita Coffee Roasting Company,
  4. Stumptown Coffee Roasters,
  5. Blue Bottle Coffee,
  6. Intelligentsia Coffee & Tea
The article does have sources that are independent of this topic and are relevant. Also, special care has been taken to ensure that there is no WP:PROMO by retaining it to be a factual piece.
Happy to provide additional details. Ktin ( talk) 21:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Saying "but there are other similar articles" basically has zero weight at AfD. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
ThatMontrealIP, There is a subtle nuance, not sure if that was caught. The message above is not a "but, there are are other articles, hence, this should be". But, it is very specifically, stating that this is being built out as a part of the same concept / theme - i.e. thirdwave coffee in the region. Ktin ( talk) 21:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Ktin: we determine whether or not articles are kept or deleted via our notability standards. For corporations the standard is WP:NCORP. It is all about sources and depth of coverage, and has nothing to do with building themes or content areas. If this is your first time at AfD then I encourage you to read the NCORP guideline, which is really all that matters for deletion discussions. No in-depth independent coverage means no article. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 21:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kakrail Mosque. T. Canens ( talk) 04:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Zubair Ahmed

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

Unable to find anything other than some passing mention. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 16:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - as leader of a major mosque, he might be notable, but I have difficulty reading the extremely stilted, "in the know" language of the page. Its not quite WP:TNT but it's close. If it is kept, it needs a lot of editing to be useful for our readers. Bearian ( talk) 14:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I didn't find anything in English and in Bengali. You're welcome to improve it. If it is kept (without significant improving & source), it should be moved to draft space. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 01:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Shankkar Aiyar

Shankkar Aiyar (  | 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:NPROF. Lack of credible academic citations. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens ( talk) 10:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 10:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 10:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 10:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. Complete absence of reasoned analysis. No assessment of the subject's extensive body of work. The nom argues that since the subject, a journalist and author who has never been employed as an academic, fails WP:PROF, they cannot be notable. Well, he fails NFOOTY, too, an argument no more intellectually vacant. Let's not waste editors' time any furthher and just speedy close this foolishness. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 15:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. Agree with feedback above. The subject is not an academic and should not be subject to WP:NPROF. Ktin ( talk) 22:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 11:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Krodh (2019)

Krodh (2019) (  | 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. No significant coverage either. We can't have articles on each and every short films released on YT. - The9Man ( Talk) 10:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Salvio 12:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

CB Insights

CB Insights (  | 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:NCORP, and WP:SIGCOV. This purely a promotional article WP:PROMO. Earlier, the article was proposed for deletion WP:PROD, but the creator of this article removed the tag with reasoning which is beyond anyone's comprehension ( kindly check the history log). Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens ( talk) 10:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 10:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 10:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. Here's my explanation.

CB Insights is one of the top three (by usage and revenue) market intelligence platforms for tracking venture capital, and funding activities for private companies. Link from one of CB Insights' competitors here.

The company is considered a leader in its domain and a simple test would be searching CB Insights on Wikipedia and seeing the number of articles, particularly in the private equity, venture capital domains. Link here.

The company is quite a significant one in the private equity / venture capital / startup investments domain because it fills a void that very few can fill. i.e. market intelligence / venture capital information for private startups. Currently, they are tracking an annual revenue of ~$50 million, and have ~300 employees.

Sources

Sources for this article are quite diverse and a collection of all of them will pass the Wikipedia:GNG guidelines where the emphasis is on a) independent sources, b) reliability of the sources being referenced, c) more than a passing mention i.e. significant coverage, and d) multitude of sources -- all of them proving that that this is indeed notable.

1. Newspapers and Media: E.g. New York Times, TechCrunch, Business Insider

2. Market Intelligence Trackers: E.g. Crunchbase, Linkedin Company Intelligence

3. Other Advisory Firms: E.g. Pricewaterhouse Coopers

Further proof of CB Insights as a Reliable Source for Financial Data -- Can be also seen from the below table which shows the number of articles referencing CB Insights data. Now, if you click on each one of them you will see the reliability.

Source Number of articles

referencing CB Insights

Link
Wikipedia 307 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awikipedia.org+%22CB+Insights%22
New York Times 299 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22CB+Insights%22
Financial Times 344 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aft.com+%22CB+Insights%22
WSJ.com 320 https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awsj.com+%22CB+Insights%22

Additionally a few sources have been assessed to add to the GNG guidelines checks. In all this you will see that the reliability, independence, and significance measures are met, and met at multiple locations -- hence, collectively meeting the notability checks.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Colleen Lougen (2017) CB Insights, Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 22:3-4, 247-250, DOI: 10.1080/08963568.2017.1372018

https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2017.1372018

Yes Journal of librarianship (Business and Finance) w/ named librarians independent of the subject. Yes Journal focused on librarians marking their notes on sources and their relevance Yes Specifically discusses CB Insights as a data provider ✔ Yes
https://techcrunch.com/2015/11/09/cb-insights-raises-10-million-in-series-a-funding/ Yes Article is by a named author at Techcrunch independent of the subject Yes Techcrunch is a reliable source for factual information in the technology funding space, particularly. If there is a concern that TechCrunch is not fully reliable, the below sources should be considered. Yes Article fully devoted to subject, and not just a passing mention ✔ Yes
https://www.businessinsider.com/cb-insights-has-acquired-data-assets-venturesource-dow-jones-7-2020 Yes Named author independent of the subject of the article Yes Business Insider is a reliable source for factual information in the financial space Yes Article is fully devoted to the subject, and not just a passing mention ✔ Yes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/avaseave/2015/04/08/predictive-analytics-and-novel-visualization-draw-customers-to-must-have-data/#5d133f336623 Yes Article by named author independent of the subject Yes Forbes is considered a reliable source in the financial reporting space Yes article fully devoted to subject, and not just a passing mention ✔ Yes
https://www.fastcompany.com/3061344/how-emailing-i-love-you-translated-to-1-million-in-data-analysis-revenue Yes Article by named author independent of the subject of this page. Yes FastCompany considered a reliable source for factual information in the Financial space Yes Article is entirely on the subject of this page, and is not a passing mention. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.


Ktin ( talk) 03:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. The Financial Times seems to regard the figures they produce as newsworthy, but don't report much on the company itself. There is dedicated coverage in Forbes already quoted in the article. The reason given for deprodding seemed quite clear to me, in context. I don't necessarily agree with it, and it shouldn't affect the AfD either way, but it's inaccurate to say that it's "beyond anyone's comprehension". -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 14:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Agree with the above Keep vote and assessment. This company has significant coverage some, from major news sources, Forbes, Tech Crunch, etc. It also has a lot of incoming links within Wiki. I am surprised that why someone would nominate this for deletion! Lately I have seen many good pages being nominated for deletion just because they are commercial in nature. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 00:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Lots of significant coverage as noted above. While Twinkle makes it exceptionally easy to nominate for deletion, please consider doing a bit of research before clicking the button as Wikipedia's resources are scarce. Note that there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding around notability in the nom when citing the removed PROD - we don't care if something is "unique", we care if it is discussed significantly by sources demonstrating notability. II | ( t - c) 11:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 12:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Active Risk

Active Risk (  | 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 company - fails WP:NCORP. Of the two references currently in the article, one is a dead link to a news release, and the other doesn't mention the company. A WP:BEFORE search found lots of syndicated news releases, but no independent coverage. There is a brief article about the parent company on the French Wikipedia, but not one on en.wiki so a redirect isn't an option. The article is only linked to from one other article - List of GRC Software. Both editors who have contributed to the article apart from to clean it up are single-purpose accounts that have not edited again since. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Garry King

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

BLP article about a drummer and music producer filled with unambiguous advertising — both for the subject and for his gear endorsement partners. I can't find widespread coverage in independent sources that would justify inclusion and even if WP:N was met, nuking it and starting over would seem to be the more sensible option. Hence: Delete — Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 09:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is one of those long-serving journeyman musicians who has made an honest living bouncing around the industry as a sideman and studio hound, but all of his works are a few degrees of separation away from notability in his own right. He made the metalhead news briefly in 2013 for leaving the band Exorcism (themselves barely notable), and for all his other band memberships he is only ever listed briefly as being present. For his studio work he has some friendly interviews in the gearhead press, but once again most of his coverage is brief listings in pro directories. And finally, the nominator is correct about this article's attempted promotion of his various business ventures. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT, as the formatting and sourcing is terribly bad. If you want to, per WP:CHEAP, redirect to band Exorcism. Bearian ( talk) 14:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Part of a promotional walled garden surrounding the repeatedly deleted Csaba Zvekan. Exorcism is another page created by the same coi editor and I question their notability. He didn;t make news leaving them as suggested above, pr releases were repeated saying it happened. Don't bother redirecting, band page should be deleted too. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Non-notable musician, Non-notable band. Couldn't find anything reliable about either him or the band. Especially the band. Just streaming service entries, social media pages, press releases and lots and lots of blogs. I have found several album reviews - on WordPress sites, unfortunately. The only reliable source is this: Rock Hard album review Rock Hard is a notable magazine. I have also searched for two of their albums. "Exorcism End of Days" yielded results from horror movies and a few streaming service/database links. "Exorcism I Am God" yielded much more results, including several album reviews as I mentioned, but like I said those reviews are featured on blog sites. There are also press releases about them releasing a new track or album but that's it. Non-notable band and non-notable musician like I said. Also, the article was created by Csabi911 (most likely Csaba Zvekan himself), whose main Wikipedia activity revolves around the bands Raven Lord and Exorcism (he is part of both of these bands), and Garry King so the COI (conflict of interest) is obvious. None of these articles are notable, in fact, Raven Lord and Exorcism are up to deletion as well. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 10:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky ( talk) 22:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Individual

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

Ugh, this is a mess that even if salvageable as a notable concept needs WP:TNT. The current article seems like part WP:ESSAY, part WP:OR, part a WP:DISAMBIG, it seems to rehash Person with the added sections on "this term can also means blah blah" which is a WP:DICTDEF. Ping User:LookingGlass who proposed deletion of it (on the talk page), few years back (see their rationale at Talk:Individual#DELETE with which I agree). This should be simplified either into a redirect to person, or a disambig with topics mentioned in see also such as Self, Philosophy of self, Psychology of self, and Religious views on the self. The short sections in law and biology seem to me beyond rescue as off topic/OR/DICTDEF/not encyclopedic style. The remainder of the article is about Philosophy of self, so there is some scope of merger, I guess, but again, much of what is here is unreferenfed, so.... perhaps cut and paste to that article's talk page on the off chance it would be useful to someone interested in that article, before redirecting/disambiguating this mess? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉( talk) 12:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this ill-conceived nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. I WP:AGF; and suppose we all want to improve the encyclopedia; and that is a more constructive way to do it. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 04:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Andrea Silvestri

Andrea Silvestri (  | 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:BIO. Not a full professor. scope_creep Talk 07:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Dude, Trying to prove the argument by the negative, doesn't work at Afd, or indeed, in life itself, generally speaking. The subject is a adjunct professor, so WP:PROF doesn't apply and there is insufficient research to prove notability. So it falls to WP:BIO. scope_creep Talk 16:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
SPA editor, probably them in person, himself. scope_creep Talk 11:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Looking at each reference in turn, supplied by the SPA.
  1. Company page. Not independent, not secondary. No indication of notability.
  2. Proves that he is employed at the university. Does not prove notability.
  3. Proves that he is employed at the university. Does not prove notability.
  4. Proves he is on a scientific committee. Does not prove notability
  5. Won a non-notable legal award. Does not prove notability.
  6. Proves he is a good tax lawyer. Does not prove notability. All of them fail WP:BIO. He doesn't achieve WP:NPROF. scope_creep Talk 11:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  7. Tax Awards 2016. A non-notable award. scope_creep Talk 11:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
these you are doing are subjective evaluations. If we were to decide independently the notoriety of each teacher on wikipedia, 80% of the pages should be removed -- 151.36.245.180 ( talk) 14:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Dear IP editor: the relevant standards for notability of people are given under WP:BASIC. If you want to make a difference here, you need to show substantial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. See also WP:THREE. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 15:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment IP, regarding the comment on teacher articles, see WP:WHATABOUTX. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 10:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Two more WP:SPAs who arrived at 12:34 and 12.41 respectively. Probably WP:SOCKs. scope_creep Talk 11:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
No, its not the point of notability, and Afd isn't a vote counting system, its a discussion. Your two references count as passing mention, again a strong indication that the person is non-notable. scope_creep Talk 10:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Birmingham International Airport (disambiguation)

Birmingham International Airport (disambiguation) (  | 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 unnecessary. Readers looking for either Birmingham airport can visit the other via hatnotes at the top of each page. feminist (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The sources have been reviewed and general consensus is that they are just about sufficient. Stifle ( talk) 12:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Motiravan Kangali

Motiravan Kangali (  | 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 author with no evidence of satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. References are passing mentions with no in-depth coverage of him. Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 06:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham ( talk) 10:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Kangali has widely written on tribal issues in India and is considered as a scholar of Gondi language. His works have been cited by various publications including BBC Hindi. Simple google scholar search shows his works have been cited by others, at one instance in Journal of Tribal Intellectual Collective India. Kangali belonged to a marginalized section of society and his works are mostly in Marathi and Gondi language. His inclusion in Wikipedia also makes it more inclusive. Strong keep. Shivashree ( talk) 03:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    Shivashree, not a valid 'keep' rationale. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Notability on Wikipedia is a demonstration of significant, in-depth coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources (see WP:GNG). By that standard Kangali is obviously not notable as a simple search will tell. Simply because others have cited someone's works doesn't make them notable automatically. Java Hurricane 05:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    Based on Google Scholar alone, the subject is very far away from being notable. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 07:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only passing mentions, not significant independant coverage. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 07:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    Ref #1 Jothe (2020): Kangali is subject of the article; not just a passing reference. The author himself a scholar of Tata Institute of Social Sciences. The passing reference in BBC Hindi mentions Mr. Kangali as 'Scholar of Gondi language'. The Hindu reference mentions Mr. Kangali as 'linguist and expert in Gondi language and culture', ref in Dainik Bhaskar (2015) is an obituary. His works are based on a language and culture that is vulnerable and is on the verge of extinction. His exclusion from Wikipedia will be exclusion of the people who are already excluded from public discourse. The person is certainly notable. Shivashree ( talk) 01:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    Weak delete or merge. I've changed to weak delete, as ref #1 is relatively significant coverage, but not much else is. Being a scholar is not inherently notable. The BBC Hindi reference is not significant coverage. Ref #6 (obit in 2015) is not significant either as it's very short. (Disclaimer: I had to use Google Translate for some of the sources.) Perhaps some of the contents of this article could be merged into Gondi language? - Kj cheetham ( talk) 08:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    Weak keep or merge to Gondi language. Changed my !vote again, as seems to just about meet criteria 2 of WP:ANYBIO. Still lacks multiple independant sources with significant coverage of his life though, as ideally I'd be looking for a biographical book or equivalent. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky ( talk) 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I suggest we keep this article on Kangali based not only on his scholarly work, but on his advocacy for the Gondi language, a language spoken by 2 million people. He helped standardize Gondi, and invented a script for the language. (See here and here for his work on standardization, and here for how the script is being taught to students and here for the script's digitization.) Moreover, contrary to the claims above, there are several in-depth articles about him.( one, two three). The article does need more citations for much of its content, but the article itself is notable - it is important and is supported by many reliable secondary sources. Prad Nelluru ( talk) 15:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    As a very quick review of those sources:
  1. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/interviews/language-is-the-only-tool-for-expressing-identity-and-culture-46695 - interview, hence not completely independant
  2. https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Telangana/2015-05-13/Standardised-dictionary-in-Gondi-language-soon/150633 - covers his work, not him as a person
  3. https://en.gaonconnection.com/in-chhattisgarh-tribal-community-students-will-soon-be-studying-in-the-native-gondi-language/ - brief mention of him, sounds more like it's the primer by Padda that's taught in schools
  4. https://jobsvacancy.in/gondi-language-digital-font-ready-books-will-now-be-published/ - again brief mention
  5. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/seven-brotherhoods-and-the-love-of-trees-animals-and-birds-46698 - some mentions, which is good
  6. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/interviews/language-is-the-only-tool-for-expressing-identity-and-culture-46695 - repeat of 1st one
  7. http://www.adivasiresurgence.com/india-motiravan-kangalis-bahujan-eyes/ - this one I should say is an independant significant source

Sources need to have significant coverge, not just be secondary and reliable, to establish notability. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 15:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I think the first and last links in your list constitute significant coverage, though the first is an interview. The don't see a difference between articles of his work and him for the purposes of establishing notability - both establish his importance. The brief mentions, still, show his impact, which helps establish notability. I do think there could be better and more voluminous coverage of him, but there's no reason to outright delete this article. Prad Nelluru ( talk) 23:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I just want to let you all know that this is being discussed on Facebook by Adivasi Resurgence. I will quote them below, but I would be happy to "improve" this article if that would keep it, and if I understood what needed to be "improved." Indigenous peoples are extremely underrepresented on wikipedia. Link to original post: https://www.facebook.com/adivasi.resurgence/posts/3044333029026740?__tn__=-R /// Quote from that post:
  1. BHOPAL: A social leader who had thousands of supporters, who was scholar of an important but endangered language. Someone who got a huge populace take pledge to revive the language.

The man who wrote books, whose anniversary is remembered and who has monument after him, his 'Wikipedia' page is considered for deletion, and this is done 'by voting' which only a few people aware of and they quickly do it. The Wikipedia page on him has citations, all the information that is needed, links about person's immense contribution from sources ranging from BBC to Bhaskar, Jagran, yet it is 'considered for deletion', with the false claim that this is 'self promotion', though the person died long ago. Not everyone knows but this deletion is through voting and how many vote? 10-12? Certain individuals who perhaps work as a group, they are part of such action. Now, Wikipedia's aim was to make knowledge free, it was to put focus on people from communities that didn't have adequate representation, the marginalized, the aim was also to bring women as editors. However, who would have imagined that such possessed and intellectually dishonest people who create handles with a purpose would enter and try to erect a wall, be gatekeepers of information? Unfortunately, that's happening in a big way and it's going on unchecked. Communities that didn't have access to higher education for long, are being stopped and not allowed to tell their history. There are huge communities whose figures are known in these regions but information about them hasn't reached the internet. Tribal communities that had less access to higher education, can't be stopped in this fashion, from telling the world about their history, heroes. And those who shut others' account don't write either but stop others, deter them and turn Wikipedia into their own property--drawing power through a strange system, just because they have been there for sometime. Totally mindboggling, how will new people come to the platform, they will simply leave it, stonewalled. Wikipedia aim was to draw people, not turn them off. However, imagine, a user makes his account, he hasn't published anything, but there are strange characters who appear from nowhere, even go to the extent of 'deletion of account', citing mumbo jumbo, sounding as if they are speaking from pulpit to their subjects. And those doing it, seem to work in a planned manner, with a manic urge to remove references about communities. Is it because these leaders are opposed to dominant narrative! Don't let Wikipedia become a shrine of knowledge and a few becoming its gatekeepers who can turna minnow into a hero, and decide that a giant would be 'non-notable' and 'useless' and his name 'fit for deletion'. Via Shams Ur Rehman Alavi http://www.newsbits.in/wrecking-wikipedia-erasing-history-of-marginalized-communities-defeating-purpose-of-website /// END QUOTE Hawa-Ave ( talk) 17:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Have found some notability references from reputed sources that I have already added to the article - [18]; it appears that Kangali does have significant contributions to the linguistic preservation and development of Gondi language to his credit. - Sdsouza ( talk) 19:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep among the few writers from an oppressed community and comparison simply cannot be made on inappropriate notability scales (esp. since his writing is/has-so-far not been accessible to English speakers). In any case notability seems established by - the contribution to deciphering Indus and Hampi symbolism + working on Gond literary renaissance as mentioned in reliable sources (added a book with a chapter that has several references to him). Shyamal ( talk) 11:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Strong support for keeping. It's important that editors from countries with a history of strong media and/or internet penetration understand how grave the issue of access is in developing countries. There is often very little documentation of works of many noted authors like Kangali. When it goes without saying that the work of many w:Adivasi (indigenous) or Dalit (historically oppressed) authors, it's much worse, and it might be futile to find online resources or publications in international journals. It's really hard for many researchers and scholars to get published without a strong institutional backing. Guidelines, like deletion criteria, are not above the equitable treatment many notable persons deserve. A maintenance tag should be okay to push editors here on Wikipedia to improve the article but deleting the article is more like killing it entirely without allowing it to grow, just on the basis of criteria that works very well for western authors. -- Psubhashish ( talk) 05:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I believe Prad Nelluru makes a convincing case with sources that this meets WP:N. It might be a bit weak, but I think it passes.   //  Timothy ::  talk  18:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 07:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Jamie Veale

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, due to a lack of significant independent coverage, and does not meet WP:NFOOTY, having never played in a fully-professional league or a senior international fixture. Prod was removed by the article creator without reasoning, although the issue was raised at my talk page but provided no compelling reason to avoid deletion. Kosack ( talk) 06:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kosack ( talk) 06:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack ( talk) 06:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Kosack ( talk) 06:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Bo Martynowska

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " It was deprodded by an anon with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Note the the article creator is a WP:SPA and possibly the subject herself considering the username of the SPA ("Jmartyn27" - the article uses diminutive "Bo" but the subject first name is Joanna Justyna, so J, and her age is... 27. Sigh. ). WP:DUCK quacks very close to WP:SELFPROMOTE here... PS. After starting this AfD I found Bo Martyn, which this article is a badly named fork of (so I just redirected that old article to the new one). That other article is older, but also edited pretty much exclusively by SPAs and IPs. If this is kept, we will need to merge histories and likely rename the article from Bo to Joanna Justyna, but I don't really expect this to survive, so... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Kenneth Cordier

Kenneth Cordier (  | 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:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, poorly referenced biography/puff piece Mztourist ( talk) 04:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 05:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 05:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Reads like a corporate bio, so WP:TNT applies. I'm also not seeing strong evidence that WP:BIO is met. Nick-D ( talk) 23:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Wednesday Island (California)

Wednesday Island (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)

Island does not have a name. Author attempted to unilaterally declare a name by editing google maps and creating this article. Sources are self-published by the same contributor. Starryaja ( talk) 04:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Also nominating related article created by same user with no sources: reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Delete both for failing WP:GEOLAND. This place name appears to be a neologism unsupported by reliable independent references. The book reference is self-published. The remaining references do not even mention the subject. An independent search for references comes up empty. USGS has no record. Finally, Google Maps contains user-generated content. The now-removed Midzemuthleiy, Delaware was an actual hoax brought into Wikipedia via Google Maps. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Time Flies (Tori Kelly song)

Time Flies (Tori Kelly 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)

Entirely unsourced article for a song cover. All sources found reference the original Drake song or are mainly about the extended play it's featured in, Solitude (Tori Kelly EP). Fails WP:NSONG. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: uDiscoverMusic is not reliable as it is "operated by Universal Music Group, the largest record label in the world and home to the greatest artists in history." See 1, a lot of bias here. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 00:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename "Time Flies (Drake song), and incorporate material relating to Drake's version. I am a little on the fence here. There are multiple reliable sources that cover this song, although they generally say much the same thing and are not terribly in depth. But this song also charted in its Drake incarnation, and it has now been covered by 2 significant artists. Deletion would be wrong since there is reliably sourced coverage and redirection would be problematic since with 2 significant versions there is no uniquely appropriate redirect target. So even if it borders on IAR, the best solution seems to be to keep the article and cover both versions of the song in that article. Rlendog ( talk) 20:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to ITV Schools. Stifle ( talk) 12:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Finding Out (TV programme)

Finding Out (TV programme) (  | 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 TV programme, no valuable sourcing and no ref of it online   Kadzi   ( talk) 11:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   ( talk) 11:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Dr Kadzi appears to be under a misapprehension about the link to TV Brain. That section of the website is there for the sole purpose of listing missing television. Therefore every episode of Finding Out listed there will be missing. It is fallacy, of course, to reverse that logic and decide that that means that all episodes are missing. Even if it were true, is the absence of a television series from the archives a reason to delete a Wikipedia article? It would prevent any articles on pre-World War II television from appearing here. Similarly, the destruction of the DuMont Network archive doesn't seem to have provided sufficient reason to remove those related articles. Simon Coward ( talk) 14:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. I tried my hardest and came up with basically nothing. [21] (only in "snippet view" so I can't verify) describes it as "perhaps the most popular" ITV show for children at the time. There's also [22] in a non-RS and [23] (namedrop). In addition, I found a single paragraph in the TLS from 9 January 1987, p 30, about the then-upcoming season. Just don't think there's the coverage for GNG. However, WP:NTV says that an individual … television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations … or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. ITV surely had a broad national audience in the '60s–'80s. But without any real sourcing, I fail to see how we can retain the article. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 02:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 02:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 02:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per Nom. I am certainly for historical preservation of subjects so not opposed to a merge/redirect to ITV Schools per Nate. Presently that article has no sources, being improperly sourced through the "External links" (with so much material appearing as original research it too could be nominated) , so would benefit from a reliable source. This subject could certainly be presented there. Note: When notability is contested it could be a fallacy to only present that sources surely exist. If "More could be found with some diligence", now would be the time. -- Otr500 ( talk) 03:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Redirect: No evidence of SIGCOV here. I'm slightly baffled at the keep proponents focusing their attention on whether there are extant episodes (which one way or another has no bearing on any pertinent notability criteria), and ignoring that this is a GNG failure (where meeting the GNG is, in fact, how those early TV articles survive). Obviously it could be a credible search term for a redirect, though. Ravenswing 11:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Dusty Mancinelli

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a filmmaker, which just states that he exists and doesn't even attempt to demonstrate that he would pass WP:CREATIVE. As always, filmmakers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just it's technically possible to verify that their work exists -- he would need to have a stronger notability claim (e.g. an Oscar or a Canadian Screen Award) under his belt, and/or enough critical attention being paid to his films in published media to get him over WP:GNG. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this -- but simply being able to list a filmography and support it with an IMDb link is not automatically enough in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Johnpacklambert: I have revised the article with refs. Could you please review? Alaney2k ( talk) 14:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Consider Google is showing 12,900 results for a search on "Dusty Mancinelli". It also appears that several movies of his were shown at TIFF. He also appears to have won an award at Sundance. I think this was simply a forgotten/ignored article. I will take a look at those results to see if they are routine/trivial or not. I will start adding some of the non-trivial references. Alaney2k ( talk) 13:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Just having movies shown at a film festival is not, in and of itself, a notability criterion for a filmmaker — no matter what film festivals a film may have been screened at, the filmmaker's notability still hinges on the degree to which the films did or didn't get published reviews from professional film critics. And he didn't win an award at Sundance, he won an award at Slamdance (which is not the same thing). But all film festival awards are not created equal when it comes to securing the notability of a filmmaker — awards at top-tier film festivals like TIFF, Berlin, Cannes or Sundance would nail it, while awards at lesser film festivals like Yorkton or Slamdance don't count for nearly as much. And finally, his number of hits is going to be disproportionately inflated right now, because he does have a film in the upcoming TIFF lineup, and so his name appears in coverage of the overall lineup announcement — but because of my first point about how simply being at the festival doesn't secure a filmmaker's notability all by itself, the current TIFF doesn't secure Mancinelli's notability all by itself. Bearcat ( talk) 13:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks. I will take that into consideration as I work on the article. I think I am leaning to keep based on what I have found in only one half-hour. Alaney2k ( talk) 14:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Also, you do realize that almost everything you've added to the article so far is a primary source that is not support for notability, right? Even if you're working with the idea that having a film be an "official selection" of a film festival should be an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, the film festival's own self-published online catalogue of its own film lineup is not the sourcing you need to get there — you need media to pick up the story and have a journalist re-report it as news, not sources that are directly affiliated with the claim, to turn anything into a basis for notability. Bearcat ( talk) 17:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I don't think you need to put words in my mouth. I will take your comments in mind as I work on it. Alaney2k ( talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
My expectation is that Violation would be reviewed. And I think being an official selection for several of those festivals indicates a notable film-maker, although clearly early in his career. Alaney2k ( talk) 14:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The question isn't whether it will be reviewed — even if it does, it will still need numerous reviews, not just one or two, to get him over GNG. The question is whether it has already been reviewed or not. We don't base notability on what might (but also might not) happen in the future — we judge it solely on the basis of whether what's already true today clears the bar or not. Bearcat ( talk) 18:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
A lot of the notability essay articles work on predictors. E.g. sports first rounders, etc. It would be a predictor to be interviewed, then. Is there such an article for film personnel? Alaney2k ( talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)r reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - based on the additions I have made to the article, I do believe that Mancinelli passes #1 and #3 of WP:FILMMAKER. As a stub before, it was sorely lacking. His shorts are available through paid major streaming services such as Prime and Apple TV. His films have won some significant awards. The awards at Slamdance are recognized by the Oscars. His feature film of this year was selected for the "Fantastic 7" and is premiering at TIFF. Additionally, the fact that his films have been shown at MANY film festivals internationally, and not minor festivals, would indicate a high level of respect in his field for his work. I don't think it is too early in his career for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think that Violation too, should probably have its own article, once it is shown at TIFF. Alaney2k ( talk) 15:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - article now includes a number of well-cited claims of notability, including reviews of some of his work and participation in significant film festivals and receiving awards from these. Xuxl ( talk) 16:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I don't think the citations rise to WP:GNG. Subject of the article has directed short films, but this isn't enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. This is a director who is working, but having a job in entertainment doesn't make the subject automatically notable. EverybodyEdits ( talk) 05:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If the consensus is to delete, I suggest instead that it be moved to Draft namespace instead as the director is about to premiere a feature film at TIFF. Alaney2k ( talk) 14:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 04:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Shafique Katumba

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

Subject of article is a non notable socialite who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG A before search shows him mentioned majorly only in primary sources. Per WP:ANYBIO also he doesn’t seem to be notable. Celestina007 22:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 22:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 22:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 22:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
!Voting a mere 'Keep' without providing any rationale isn’t usually valid. Celestina007 14:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
UGAWOOD2020 is the creator of the article. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
A sock-puppet investigation has been opened. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Article was A7 deleted by admin User: Cryptic shortly after nomination here. (non-admin closure) - hako9 ( talk) 03:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Trippy Ja Productions

Trippy Ja Productions (  | 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:NM. No evidence of independent coverage turns up in an internet search. The two references in the article are the same press release. — {Cryptic Canadian} 00:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. I'm not seeing an clear consensus one way or the other here and the discussion seems to have generally run out of steam. There's some evidence the nomination was disruptive, some arguments that it doesnt meet GNG but nothing I would call conclusive. Wouldn't object to this being nominated again in the future. Fenix down ( talk) 10:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

AFC Champions League clubs performance comparison

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

clubs performance comparison are not notable according: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison Malo95 ( talk) 14:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Malo95 ( talk) 14:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - The deletion request seems to be based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with several Wikipedia policies linked often without a coherent narrative as to why it should be deleted. This leaves the onus on those wishing to keep the article without having a clear objection to discuss. This article, and similar articles should remain. Wikipedia policy cited included:
WP:SYNTH - This is totally inapplicable here. The page does not reach any conclusion of any kind, and just summarises facts.
MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS - This is not a reason for deletion and any access issues (which seem minor), can easily be addressed.
WP:GNG - The information set out in the page is covered in multiple reliable sources in multiple countries.
WP:OR - The information is factual and direct from sources. There is nothing resembling WP:OR here.
WP:NOSTATS - This aligns directly with NOSTATS which says statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability (exactly what this does). It also says where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article (which is exactly the point of pages like this). This presentation of results is common among many sports as it is seen as a good way to present results e.g. Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timelines.
Jopal22 ( talk) 15:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment - @ Jopal22: Let me ask, what sources do you have to help with this article because how I see it is their no sources for a season comparison between each team. To say WP:OR isn't real is also incorrect because their is literally no references to compare teams. HawkAussie ( talk) 03:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment - @ HawkAussie: Well this is really a performance record of each teams performance rather than a "comparison" as the article in named. The record (i.e. results of each season is widely available), and there is no conclusion drawn. I suppose I would throw this back, this page is essentially a collection of statistics showing results. Which statistics being shown do you think are either incorrect, cannot be verified, or are not objective? Jopal22 ( talk) 08:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 07:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down ( talk) 23:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The copyright of the image can and should be discussed elsewhere. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Michael Lafferty

Michael Lafferty (  | 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 relies mostly, if not entirely, on self-published sources or sources with a close connection to one of the subject's companies.

Three of the eight references are marked as "dead links", yet even these lead to websites with links to the subject.

The first reference leads to the Financial Times (subject is described as a "Financial Times journalist"). The second reference (dead) leads to lafferty.com (subject is described as "Chairman of Lafferty Group"). The third reference (also dead) leads to OMFIF's website (subject is described as "co-chairman of Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF)". The fifth reference leads to the Wincott Foundation and is used as a source linking the subject to ... the Wincott Foundation. The sixth reference is lafferty.com again (subject founded this Lafferty Group in 1981, the current Wikipedia page claims). The seventh reference leads to the OMFIF's website again (subject was "involved in the formation of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF)", the current Wikipedia page claims. The eighth reference (dead) follows the claim that "In 2011, he was instrumental in setting up the International Academy of Retail Banking" so yet another company with links to the subject.

I checked to see if it was a recently created page. It is not. It has been here for more than nine years. Most edits, including all the early ones, were by User:Stuartatlafferty. This sounds like a possible employee of the Lafferty Group, one of the subject's companies. User:Stuartatlafferty has made no further edits in the past nine years and has never edited anything other than this subject. User:Stuartatlafferty also uploaded File:Michael lafferty.jpg and included a link to the Michael Lafferty Wikipedia page on the International Accounting Bulletin Wikipedia page ("International Accounting Bulletin was first launched in 1983 as a newsletter by Michael Lafferty", that page states).

A Google search leads to numerous Michael Laffertys. Ignoring Twitter, Facebook, etc, all I can find that possibly relates to this one is this (written though by a Michael Lafferty, so not independent) and The Irish Times, which has only this. Gaois ( talk) 00:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Some of the discussion goes a bit off the tracks, but there is pretty solid consensus that she meets the guidelines. Mojo Hand ( talk) 20:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Kerstin Emhoff

Kerstin Emhoff (  | 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. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from her exhusband or her exhusband's second wife. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Minor edits were made for clarification. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 04:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. No reasoned analysis for deletion. A documentary producer with an extensive resume of productions. Her most production, "AKA Jane Roe" was widely and internationally reviewed. The nom's implicit argument, that a woman whose ex-spouse is notable should be presumed non-notable and there is no need to evaluate her work, is just an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 02:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, fails WP:GNG is the reason. What sources mention her in significant depth per GNG? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 02:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    Don't be disingenuous, Muboshgu. You altered your nomination statement to address my objections (not very convincingly), and to make it look like I had ignored your statement. That's simply unacceptable behavior, as a user of more than 15 years experience well knows, no less an admin. And you've plainly done jack spit to comply with WP:BEFORE. Emhoff's most recent production, "aka Jane Roe," has been widely covered nationally and internationally, including four pieces (two news, two editorial) in the NYTimes alone. Other work has won, inter alia, a national Emmy award. A creative professional is notable principally for creating significant work, and you've done exactly nothing to assess the significance of Emhoff's work. Exactly nothing. And there's certainly a flurry of coverage of Emhoff this week, saying things like "Kerstin Emhoff co-founded a produciton company that works to elevate a diversity of voices. Prettybird, houses directors that are making bold statements and produces progressive content that helps move conversations forward. She also founded a non-profit called Pipelines which is a "mobile discovery app and Foundation" that aims to help people from underrepresented communities break through social barriers to success." [26]
And, again, you've done jack spit to evaluate this or any coverage. All you've done is say "This woman's ex-spouse is notable, so I'm going to assume she only "inherits" notability through him, and even though her work has much more recognition than his, and looks to be more significant, I'm going to dismiss it out of hand." That's not the attitude I'd associate with someone here to build an encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 04:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I didn't change the intent of what was said. All I did was add to the explanation of "Not notable", by which I meant doesn't pass GNG, and mention more specifically who she'd inherit notability from. I should have declared those changes though and have now done so. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 04:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 13:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 16:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The page may have been created because of her recent proximity to fame, but that's irrelevant to notability. The very first version of the article included the fact that she's an award winning filmmaker: that wasn't addressed in either the original or revised deletion rationale. Recently there have been several AFDs for relatives of famous people with equally vague rationales, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odessa Grady Clay (3rd nomination). pburka ( talk) 18:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The ties to AUTHOR#3 or CREATIVE#1 seem really weak to me. It is unclear what she has actually done on those projects where she got a producer credit. Getting a producer credit isn't an NFILM criretia. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Don't feel bad. It appears that every individual connected to Kamala – even tangentially – is automatically notable now that she might be VP. Her mailman is getting an article soon, along with her first boyfriend and personal physician. KidAd ( talk) 17:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_August_14&oldid=975214935"