Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_August_5 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 4 August	6 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per AleatoryPonderings discovery. (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 01:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Thumama ibn Ashras

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

Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. WP:BEFORE revealed only passing mentions in Google Scholar and JSTOR, nothing that discusses the subject directly and in-depth. Sources in the article include one tertiary source and the other does not discuss the subject directly and in-depth. There could be additional sources are available that establish notability by discussing the subject directly and in-depth that I was not able to find. If found, I will gladly withdraw the nomination and switch to keep. // Timothy :: talk 23:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 23:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Two comments, leaning keep Keep:

This, at 227, describes ibn Ashras as the 'court theologian' of Al-Ma'mun. Strikes me as the 9th century equivalent of an endowed chair or substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity per WP:NPROF.
Presumably a good number of sources would be in Arabic, which I do not read. Is there any way to find Arabic readers who might be able to help on this?

The reason I'm not yet a firm keep is that I haven't found WP:SIGCOV yet. But I find the 'court theologian' designation quite significant. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 23:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Now a firm keep. Van Ess, Josef (2017). Theology and Society in the Second and Third Centuries of the Hijra. Volume 3: A History of Religious Thought in Early Islam. Brill. doi: 10.1163/9789004356405. ISBN 978-90-04-35640-5., from a reputable academic publisher, has a profile of Thumama's life and views that runs from pages 171 to 185, with ample accompanying bibliography (mostly from medieval Arabic sources that I can't read). In my view, that's enough to pass WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 00:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 00:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep per nomination, I happily withdraw the nomination. Hopefully this article is expanded. Thanks AleatoryPonderings. // Timothy :: talk 01:16, 6 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. BD2412 T 00:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Glasgow Centurions Touch Rugby Club

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

A non notable amateur rugby team. No evidence of additional sources that would help confer notability. Created and heavily edited by single-purpose account, potentially indicating WP:COI Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete I saw a clip where they had been visited by a STV reporter on STV Riverside (A magazine show for Glasgow) a few years back, but I can't see that this was published as a separate story. I don't see any other significant coverage of the club. There is nothing to suggest they are anywhere near meeting WP:SIGCOV or WP:NRU. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 05:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete non notable Devokewater @ 21:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - I would agree with the above comments that there is nothing to suggest the level of coverage or achievement to claim enough notability for an article. Dunarc ( talk) 22:53, 11 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. BD2412 T 00:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

List of vice-chancellors of Rajiv Gandhi University

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

Delete: List does not meet WP:LISTN Subject has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 23:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 23:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 23:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 23:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I can’t say I understand why the nom thought LISTN was the clearest argument here, particularly since there is no “group” or “set”. There has apparently been only one individual in this position, and it is red linked. If it is considered relevant to the parent school article to mention the vice chancellor, it can just be mentioned there. postdlf ( talk) 23:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Question Postdlf wouldn't the group or set be Vice-chancellors of Rajiv Gandhi University? I thought it was obvious more individuals would be added to the list. (sincere question, I want to make sure I don't have a bad understanding of ListN) Thanks. // Timothy :: talk 03:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

LISTN isn't useful (or applicable) to all lists, and it's always more helpful to talk about the content directly than to just point to a guideline and copy its language. This is a "list" of one person who has held a certain position at a university. What would "discussion as a group or set" even look like there? We could talk about whether the position is notable such that it merits discussion separate from the university article (and there's no showing that it does), but there's still no "group" when there's only been one vice-chancellor. postdlf ( talk) 18:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

There is not just one individual in this post (someone has since added the others to the list). I agree there is no notability, but there clearly is a group. // Timothy :: talk 18:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Persons list who held vice- chancellor position is notable, similar articles are List of vice-chancellors of the University of Oxford, List of vice-chancellors of the University of Cambridge, List of vice-chancellors of Banaras Hindu University, List of vice-chancellors of the University of Hong Kong etc.. DEVEGOWDA S R ( talk) 02:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ TimothyBlue: Sorry, I hadn't seen that more names had been added since the nomination. I think it's still worth explaining what would "discussion as a group or set" look like for this type of list; it's at best a very indirect way of asking whether the position is notable, so just state that directly. This could also be analyzed as a WP:SPLIT from the parent article without regard to LISTN.
@ DEVEGOWDA S R: Some university vice-chancellorships may merit standalone lists; others may not. I don't see a basis for assuming all such positions do at all universities. postdlf ( talk) 21:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Postdlf:sir, You are absolutely right but as per Indian governaament vice-chancellorship of Banaras Hindu University same as Rajiv Gandhi University both are central university, only diffrer in number of students study at university. At Banaras Hindu University about 30,000 study per year where as in Rajiv Gandhi University 16,000 students per year. I quoted List of vice-chancellors of Banaras Hindu University for reference only. DEVEGOWDA S R ( talk) 04:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. No need for a separate list just to name one person. That person is mentioned already on the parent article. Ajf773 ( talk) 01:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Article improved as per concerns raised in the discussion. DEVEGOWDA S R ( talk) 02:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Does not meet WP:LISTN and is not a significant list. Whiteguru ( talk) 06:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete I can see reason to have this list on the article on the university. No good reason for it to be a free standing article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom -- Devokewater @ 21:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. At first I thought of supporting a merge, but it seems that Wikipedia has barely ever entertained such redirects for "list of vice-chancellors", that's why the article can be deleted for now. Aman Kumar Goel ^(
Talk) 17:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - Still seems to fail WP:LISTN even with the improvements. -- Dane ^talk 02:47, 9 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. $Salvio$ 08:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Professor Louie & The Crowmatix

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

Being nominated for a major award, including music, is sufficient for WP:MUSIC notabilility. However, despite the claims made in this article, and can't find any third-party sources confirming those nominations, other than press releases from the band. I don't see any other WP:SIGCOV other than local announcements of them playing at local festivals, etc. Heavy COI editing as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - Per nom. Not notable. Same old unreliable sites like Discogs, Apple Music, Rate Your Music, retail sites, blogs, press releases, concert sites and stuff where the words are separated - as usual. So no reliable sources. I have found some album reviews scattered here and there but they are featured on blogs. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 17:38, 9 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 Herb Carnegie#Family life. $Salvio$ 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Rane Carnegie

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

Subject appears to fail WP:NHOCKEY. Never played in a league that qualifies for criteria #1 and #2 and ECHL All-Star game does not qualify to pass #3 (must be First Team All-Star to pass). Tay87 ( talk) 22:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 22:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 22:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 22:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 22:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete My search didn't find the coverage required to meet WP:GNG and I don't see anything that shows he meets WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa ( talk) 22:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Herb Carnegie#Family life. Rlendog ( talk) 21:17, 12 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. czar 23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Nasscom Product Council

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

Delete: Promotional article. Creator has been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. // Timothy :: talk 22:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom Spiderone 16:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - WP:PROMO article that doesn't meet notability guidelines. -- Dane ^talk 02:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG in addition to being a promo. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 18:09, 10 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. Can be draftified via WP:REFUND for somebody who actually wants to work on it. Sandstein 17:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Zycus

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

A typical corporate profile to promote for digital presence. Press and media also nothing but a corporate marketing exercise. Awards Are non-notable such as the Scam of "2008: Red Herring 100 Asia" being mentioned as notable. Wikipedia is not a directory or corporate blog for these kinds of companies. being established in 1998 or 1900 does not make anything encyclopedic notable. Light2021 ( talk) 22:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment- The Article have some of the refs like This ( https://www.financialexpress.com/archive/zycus-inc-ranked-among-50-best-places-to-work-in-india/327854/) which does seem acceptable to me, but the article is completely written in a promotional way,so that need to be fixed as per Neutrality. Sv72 ( talk) 08:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 22:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. There's mentions, but nothing in reputable press—just press releases and clickbait. The link above appears to be copy-pasted from a press release (author is listed as "BusinessWire"). I cannot find SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources, so I believe this company fails WP:NCORP. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 04:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Draftify Some sources, could be notable, needs working on, draftify.   Kadzi   ( talk) 13:13, 12 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Saraswati Adarsha Vidyashram

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

Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that would establish WP:N for this secondary school. Article is entirely unreferenced. // Timothy :: talk 22:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: References have been added, but unfortunately do not support notability or the content in the article. // Timothy :: talk 01:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete: Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:ORG. One reference is facebook page which is WP:PRIMARY and unreliable. Second reference is just a mention of the school in a list; it does not meet the WP:N. The third reference is google app store; which may make the app notable but not the school itself. nirmal ( talk) 01:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: Two more references in Nepali newspaper indicates the school is notable in local level. nirmal ( talk) 04:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable school. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT or WP:NSCHOOL. // Timothy :: talk 16:34, 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. czar 23:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Terror i Rock 'n' Roll Önsjön

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

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or the WP:NFO additional criteria at WP:NFILM for a stand-alone article. WP:BEFORE revealed only blog reviews and entries on movie database and streaming sites. // Timothy :: talk 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 22:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete since subject fails WP:NFILM. Someone could be testing the limits of the term "obscure", a possibly noble undertaking but Wikipedia is not a directory. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:43, 10 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) 22:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

T. J. Caig

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Never played in any league that qualifies for criteria #1 and #2 and did not achieve preeminent honours in leagues listed in #3. Did play in the Eredivisie All-Star game but the succesor BeNeLiga is listed while the Eredivisie isn't, hence I assume it does not qualify. Tay87 ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

EDIT - Actually All-Star game doesn't count at all, has to be First-Team All Star, an entirely different accolade. That's what being ill for six months including COVID does to your memory. Tay87 ( talk) 22:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete since subject evidently fails WP:NHOCKEY. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:NHOCKEY and my search didn't find that he meets WP:GNG. The coverage I found was routine sports reporting. Papaursa ( talk) 22:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - not finding evidence of notability. Rlendog ( talk) 21:20, 12 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. After the cleanup on the article and the consensus reached. (non-admin closure) — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 20:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Daniel W. Nebert

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

This is WP:SOAP upload of an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY which is technically not allowed at Wikipedia. I say that the best thing to do is WP:TNT in this case. jps ( talk) 20:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment ~~I have to look into his notability before I make a suggestion.~~ However this article is PR, CV, autobiography all rolled into one. The article needs a clean up. -- Devokewater @ 21:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment From his google scholar page he's published a number of papers with more than 1,000 citations each, including papers with only two authors. Agree the current article has lots of detail, much of it unreferenced and much of which also isn't encyclopedic. MoneciousTriffid ( talk) 21:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment. Subject clearly and easily passes WP:PROF#C1, at least. So the question is not whether he's notable, it's whether the current article is salvageable or not per WP:TNT. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I've attempted to keep this article as neutral and factual as possible and have gone through discussions already about this. Dr Nebert is a noteworthy geneticist and it benefits the community to have this wiki page. This is not self-promotion.

If you have any suggestions or constructive edits, feel free to make them, but simply nuking the page sounds malicious and is unnecessary.

Thanks -glyphds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyphds ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment. Unquestionably notable, but I do not see how a bio that includes the material in "Early life and education" can imaginably be considered "neutral and factual": "He was convinced that he had come from another planet and was not related to his other family members (his hair was white-blonde while everyone else had dark hair)". Or: "he first considered an 'academic theology' major, but then concluded it was 'not sufficiently quantitative' ". Or the final paragraph in the section "Discovery of the AHR transcription factor" — too long to quote here, but entirely about all imaginable biological connections, and completely unreferenced except for a single ref. to one of his own papers.

There is only one question: should these be trimmed down to size by someone knowledgeable, which would mean retaining the earlier exuberant material in the history, or deleted entirely and started over. Neither would be easy. But I will try removing material, starting with the less technical; if I'm reverted, the solution then becomes obvious. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG!

About a year ago, User:Wabin already trimmed the article down to size, in this edit. Wabin's trimmed version was just 7 kilobytes. Unfortunately, the original page creator, User:Glyphds, reverted Wabin soon afterwards, bringing the article back up to a bloated 80 kilobytes.
I see that you started trimming the article again, earlier this week, which was thoughtful of you.
I've now manually repeated Wabin's wholesale cuts, helping to get the article much closer to a manageable size.
In an important follow-up edit, TJMSmith eliminated the entire unsourced 'awards' list, making the article leaner still. Our article is now down to 5 kilobytes.

All the best, — Unforgettableid ( talk) 12:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment This is the same scenario as Hugh Loxdale, where David notMD, Spicy + others cleaned up the article removing a lot of the fluffy nonsense, PR etc. It should be noted that much of the contributions to this article has been done by SPA’s, (one of them even referred to it as being a biography in their edit). Devokewater @ 10:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

For clarity, here is the diff where user Nebertdw asks for help in uploading his autobiography. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Never spotted that one Russ Woodroofe ( talk), I was referring to the comment on Glyphds edit: Special:Diff/903770836. Devokewater @ 13:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep in its current form after rewrite -- hroest 18:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Draftify so that references - if any available - can be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment. I restored the reference for the principal honor. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

It is a bit too technical, is it possible to simplify? -- Devokewater @ 07:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. While it was a near case for WP:TNT when presented for deletion, the article is much improved after work from non-COI editors. The subject is a clear pass of WP:NPROF C1 and C3. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep easy pass per his fellowship of AAAS. PainProf ( talk) 04:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep I see 22 papers with more than 900citations. Clearly notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Per WP:HEY it has been called for close. scope_creep^Talk 22:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:HEY. There's one citation-needed tag left as I write, but that's hardly cause for deletion. As I wrote much earlier, he clearly passes WP:PROF. And if the promotionalism returns, we have a good enough version to revert to and protect rather than needing to delete. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep the article has been cleaned up to a hgh standard Devokewater @ 00:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:HEY. Can reconsider starting again if additional unwarranted material is re-added. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 10:15, 9 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) 20:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Tribeca Developers

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

Pure WP:PROMO. All of the sources appear to be press releases. Sitush ( talk) 19:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sitush ( talk) 19:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sitush ( talk) 19:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete non notable -- Devokewater @ 21:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Speediest Delete per nom. Oh my Ganesh! I had nominated a similar Mumbai-based 'HBS Realtor' some time back (now deleted), which stood for years! While you're at this, please also savour specimens such as The Imperial 3 (pure CRYSTAL BALL); Growel's 101 (non-notable shopping mall with event calendar); Kohinoor Square - a blot on the actual Kohinoor - I've walked past this monstrosity and eye sore a million times. It's at the centre of a mega scam and is stuck midway on its journey to the skies (see here, here, and here). I'm not sure about the policy, but can an admin please speedy delete these too? These articles do not belong in Wiki, as they're just being misused to add a veneer of credibility to these catastrophic or imagined projects that are the wet dreams of Bombay land mafia! MaysinFourty ( talk) 07:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Update: Out of the three projects mentioned in my post, two have been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Growel's 101 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperial 3. Would anyone take a look at Kohinoor Square to see if it needs to go this way as well? As it stands, a lot of fluff has to be removed anyway.. MaysinFourty ( talk) 07:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. - Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Advertorial. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Article is a puff piece that just touts the company. TH1980 ( talk) 04:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and is promotional in tone. -- Dane ^talk 02:26, 9 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 Asher Edelman. $Salvio$ 08:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

ArtAssure Ltd.

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

Seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY. The article is based on self-published soures. WP:CORPSPAM Devokewater @ 19:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Devokewater @ 19:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Devokewater @ 19:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Devokewater @ 19:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Devokewater @ 19:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete because our subject fails WP:NCORP. Not only are only primary sources used but there is an obvious conflict of interest involving the article's creator, which never helps. - The Gnome ( talk) 16:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Asher Edelman, which already has most of the content we have on ArtAssure anyway. Vexations ( talk) 20:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NCORP or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N.

Above submitted by TimothyBlue. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:00, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 19:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Swedish government response to the COVID-19 pandemic

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

The article is a coatrack for material better handled in a brief form within COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. Lots of odd claims and political point making --- Snowded ^TALK 19:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep. Nominator makes no reasoned argument as to why the problems they so cursorily allude to cannot be resolved by ordinary editing. The US news coverage has certainly identified this topic as discrete from COVID in general, due to its atypicality. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 19:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

You might want to check the talk page and edit history of the article ----- Snowded ^TALK 20:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - plenty of good sources. Falls within WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 19:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep - the topic passes WP:GNG and there is more than enough coverage to justify its coverage rather than merge it back into COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. W 42 21:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete/Redirect/Merge per WP:DEL-REASON 5: Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). This is a transparent WP:POVFORK, which should be obvious to anyone by simply comparing the WP:LEADs of this article and COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. I'll also note the existence of Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden#RfC: Splitting content on government response to separate article. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
- ( edit conflict) Edited to add: I'm not sure the editors above me who suggested that it be kept understood that the issue at hand is that it is a WP:POVFORK considering the nominator made that point but did not use that specific term and none of the other comments seem to address that (at least not in any detail). Pinging just in case. @ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, BabbaQ, and Winner 42: Feel free to address this specific point. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  - When did I ever indirectly admit it was a POVFORK? I only admitted there was a problem with the lede because I wasn't entirely sure how to word it and simply went for broke. I was also open to a complete revamp of the lede. Check out the diff I provided in the final paragraph of my vote. Love of Corey ( talk) 23:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    - When did I ever indirectly admit it was a POVFORK? I'm not sure why you're asking me this; I don't know that I ever said that you did? TompaDompa ( talk) 23:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
      - "...[T]he issue at hand is that it is a WP:POVFORK considering the nominator made that point but did not use that specific term..."? Love of Corey ( talk) 23:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
        Oh, a simple misunderstanding then. I meant "nominator" as in the person who nominated this for deletion, Snowded. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Oh, okay then. My bad. Love of Corey ( talk) 23:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not convinced this is a POV-fork. This seems more like a typical summery style fork. Sure, this article has disputes over WP:NPOV, and we have policies for that but that is not a reason for deletion. At ~100kb of article size, a size which is likely to grow larger as the pandemic continues, it seems perfectly reasonable to split this out. W 42 00:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - As the article's creator, I split it from the main COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden article in the first place because of all the news coverage I observed about the Swedish government response, which I believed was enough merit for its own article. This was supported by my observation that the original version of the main COVID-19 article, which includes the government response information and which the nominator wants to merge this article back into, was pretty lengthy to begin with and just as dedicated to covering the government response as it was to covering the COVID-19 pandemic in the country itself.

To put things in perspective, I found that the original version of the COVID-19 pandemic article (with all of the information on the government response in it) measured at 239 kB, which made it a nightmare of an article per WP:SIZERULE. One version of the article that didn't have the government response information was 149 kB, which is still a lot, but is nothing compared to the original size I just mentioned. This isn't the first conversation that has come up about the notability of this article, with other discussions occurring here and here, as well as in the article's talk page. And unfortunately, dissenting users there have already been selectively re-adding the information I split off back into the main article ( [1] [2]), without doing much of anything to trim it as the nominator said. The current version of the main article is now at 192 kB.

Speaking of which, the nominator claims this topic can be merged and trimmed for the sake of the main article. I strongly disagree. If you look at the government response article itself, you'll see there is so much reliable, well-developed, and well-sourced information to deal with that it seems impossible to figure out the specifics of such a trim. There are only two ways I can see a trim going down:

1) The main COVID-19 pandemic article would take priority and entire sections on the government response would have to be deleted altogether for the sake of maintaining a manageable length for said pandemic article, thus leading to a loss of valuable information and content.

2) The topic of the Swedish government response would take priority and the trim would have to be minimal so as to preserve as much notable content as possible, thus the resulting merge will leave us with an article that's still excessively long.

The fact that the nominator hasn't clarified what exactly this trim would entail from their perspective, and how it would be beneficial and balanced for both topics, tells me it is impossible for them to figure out as well.

Finally, the WP:COATRACK and WP:POV accusations. As you can see on this article's talk page, it all apparently comes down to how the lede was worded...and that's it. When the concerns over the lede's wording came to my attention, I explained why the lede was worded that way and twice expressed my openness for the lede being reworded to better suit the article's needs. That hasn't happened, not even once, if you look at the article's history. Love of Corey ( talk) 22:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep: The nomination is based on an assessment of the creator's motives: that it's a coatrack, and designed to push a certain POV. The nominator's claim is not supported by any explanation of the evidence, and they don't even explain what the objectionable POV is. I find Love of Corey's patient, reasonable explanation of their intentions to be convincing. The article is crawling with reliable sources, and the nominator did not present any analysis that would back up their claims. — Toughpigs ( talk) 01:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment - Just to make things clear, the only thing original about this article is the lede. Everything else was copy-and-pasted from COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden with attribution. Aside from rescuing citations that would have been lost in the splitting process, I did nothing to alter the main body of the article itself. Love of Corey ( talk) 04:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I would leave the decision to authors of COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden, e.g. User:Blådjur. As I argued elsewhere, by splitting the article without previous discussion, Love of Corey violated Wikipedia:Article size; in particular, they ignored that the quantity to be counted is "Readable prose size", and they still seem not to have figured out how readable prose size is calculated. (I have no interest in discussing motives or intentions of Love of Corey). Alternatively, outright delete/redirect/merge per TompaDompa. I note that the above "Keep - plenty of good sources [...]" ignores that the article was created as a Wikipedia:Article size-violating split by Love of Corey, who above misleadingly describes themselves as "the article's creator"; their creation of article without tracing to the parent article was copyright violation ( diff). -- Dan Polansky ( talk) 10:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

How else was I supposed to describe myself? "The article's splitter"? Besides, right after I created the article, I created a talk page for that article, which included a template that indicated the material was spun off from the main COVID-19 article. This was based on my initial misinterpretation of advice I got from Diannaa about properly attributing spun-off material. They have since clarified their advice to me (in response to the creation of this very article, mind you), and I acknowledged my understanding and admitted my misinterpretation. I have since put that advice to good use here. Love of Corey ( talk) 10:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

It was premature and should have been agreed with the authors at COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden. Deleting it here an going back to the mother article would prevent issues of fork etc. ----- Snowded ^TALK 11:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, this is a subtopic of COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden, and if it were merged back, the resulting article would be over the 100k bytes of readable prose recommended per WP:SIZE. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep How Sweden has been handeling the pandemic has gotten a huge amount of commentary, its too big to merge to the main article. ★Trekker ( talk) 00:54, 9 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. $Salvio$ 08:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Big Sky Conference 50 Greatest Male Athletes

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. No significant coverage, not a topic worthy of merge/redirect to Big Sky Conference. Boleyn ( talk) 15:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep- this article is about the Big Sky Conference and it lists the 50 Greatest Male Athletes. Bzweebl ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Big Sky Conference is a separate article. This one is a spin-off to that article and it is completely unsourced, no evidence of notability. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 18:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:LISTN. This is basically a mirror of content produced by Big Sky Conference. W 42 21:12, 5 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) 18:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Miss Hazel Jade

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

Non notable author. Only sources are unreliable and what came up in google search was unrelated. Probably an autobiography as well, leaning on promotion. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete as it seems to be WP:TOOSOON as the musical play the article says Jade is most known for has not opened yet. There is a lack of coverage so WP:Basic is not passed at this stage, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per Atlantic306, with no prejudice against recreation in a few years when more sources exist. There is almost certainly an autobiography or some other COI. W 42 21:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: autobiographical article, falls far short of WP:NCREATIVE. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 16:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple ( talk) 22:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete she was a co-author of a musical that looks to not be notable either. One of 4 co-authors basically. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable, leaving door open for future notoriety as expressed above. -- Lockley ( talk) 03:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete non notable Devokewater @ 15:06, 10 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) 18:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hugo Dessioux

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

Non notable Youtuber that fails WP:GNG. Failed to find much coverage either. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete non notable -- Devokewater @ 18:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Weak Delete there seems to be a decent amount of coverage related to a death hoax related to him, [3] [4] but that's it in terms of coverage, which approaches WP:BLP1E territory. Overall fails WP:GNG. W 42 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable youtuber. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from the death hoax, an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE)} 03:30, 8 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Interstudent

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

Notability fail. As stated in the last AfD, the sourcing largely consists of the many universities involved announcing the results. Secondary coverage is minimal, if any. There is some reason to believe that the last AfD may have had some skulduggery to it; see the COIN discussion if interested. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 17:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete My searches for independent coverage e.g. with "Perspektywy" "interstudent" -site:Perspektywy.org -site:studyinpoland.pl -site:Perspektywy.pl have not found any results. We only have this article due to the creator seemingly being a recipient. In the previous AFD, all keep !voters are socks. SmartSE ( talk) 08:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
- Last statement false. Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Staszek Lem: On what basis is it false? Look at for example: [5] [6] [7] quack quack quack. SmartSE ( talk) 18:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Oops, sorry, you are right. It seemed to me that Renata voted keep, and she is a respected editor. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment. Such articles are often problematic, but the article does link to one reliable source - Gazeta Wyborcza is a major Polish newspaper and it covered the 2017 event [8]. That said, it was only its local edition that did so, and the coverage of the event is one paragraph long, the rest is about the student who won. I found a few more similar mentions that seem relatively independent: [9] in Dziennik Polski, [10] and several related ( [11], etc.) on the portal by the Polish Ministry of Education. That said, the coverage of the competition is a paragraph long at best. Borderline at best, and I am leaning towards weak delete but I will see what others can find. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
- Added Ukrainian and Russian sources. Sorry, no can read Chinese or Syriac :-) Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
keep. reliable sources exist, including coming from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. That the article is small it is no surprise: there is nothing much to write: it is a competition, and there are winners. Its notability is not worse than various beauty pageants, and importance for civilization is way higher. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
- delete - changed opinion after deeper research trying to find arguments. The parent organization is nonnotable. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Government sponsored organisations of this type are very rarely notable, unless it is a individual or for the individual. If its an organisation, being puffed by a government is no magic bullet to establish notability, and don't really see if here. If it was major prize, it would would be mentioned everywhere and its not. It is more probably a stepping stone and as such, its probably not notable for at least 10 years or more. By then it will be well established and respected and covered. But at the moment, the sources are borderline ropey at the best. To be honest it looks like a foreign student promotion programme, more accurately. That is what it is. scope_creep^Talk 00:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC
- Please cite which Wikipedia rule you are referring to. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete I can't see this passing WP:EVENTCRIT. On the surface, it might be presumed per WP:GNG but I think a closer look based on EventCrit reveals this fails per GNG: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article". // Timothy :: talk 16:50, 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 Speedy delete per G5 - created by blocked user. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Ali Mahmoud Al Suleiman

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

Claim to fame is translator; I'm not convinced that there is WP:SIGCOV here for notability. There is this article in the Daily Sabah; no authorship given, which makes it difficult to ascertain if it's a "contributor" piece, and the rest of the references appear to be derived from that article or are primary references (i.e., listing the individual's credits). I came across this looking at the edits of an editor who'd resurrected several articles created by banned socks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Hello , This writer and translator is well known in Turkey and the Arab world This discussion took place between me and a Turkish editor and admins of this wiki User:LadyofShalott User:BD2412 All sources were reliable I do not charge any money I love working on Wikipedia without any fees,If this article was promotional, as you say, it would not be accepted by 2 admin on this wiki

On the contrary, it was edited and modified, and it became an article Mevlut Bin Omar ( talk) 18:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I feel that this is likely a notable subject if the claims are valid on their face, but that the article would benefit from review by an experienced editor who reads Arabic. User:Irtapil is recently active, perhaps they can have a look? BD2412 T 18:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
- Note: To be clear, I have not "accepted" this article. I refunded it to draft as was requested on my talk page, and made some cosmetic edits to the draft. BD2412 T 21:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment When we searching about his name in Google News

"Ali Al Suleiman" We can see the news in English and Turkish news In the first search results also Yes, all my claims are correct,You evaluated Turkish sources with the other admin

I think this is a notability topic in Turkish, Arabic and English sources,As for the Arab sources

It is from news channel Orient News

and Shehab News Agency and Turkish Newspaper Daily Sabah and Arageek Mevlut Bin Omar ( talk) 18:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

If you are going to participate in these conversations, you need to learn to indent your posts properly. Otherwise, experienced editors are unlikely to take you very seriously. BD2412 T 18:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank You User:BD2412

Mevlut Bin Omar ( talk) 18:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. On the basis of the claims in the article itself I’d say notability was borderline, and I was surprised to see so many sources. The thing is, a lot of them are just PR. Many of the Turkish refs are verbatim identical and this person clearly has people working on his profile for him. I’ll admit that once I saw this I lost interest in ploughing on through the rest of them. Mccapra ( talk) 20:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment this page popped up from a spam check I run for a particular source. [12] The particular site has been used by the person trying to push this article. See the contributions for Alex_bonson90 who's been globally locked. All of their edits are to push this person. I smell block evasion. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Yes, I think you're right about the sockpuppetry; compare this and this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:33, 5 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) 18:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Prince Thibaut, Count of La Marche

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

Contested prod, simply being the son of notable pretender does not make you notable, see WP:NOTINHERITED. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 5. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete ,no indication of notability. Smeat75 ( talk) 19:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom -- Devokewater @ 21:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Not only is there no sign of notability for him, there is also no sign of notability for County of La Marche#Orleanist pretenders to Count of La Marche. If there were, I would suggest a redirect (redirects are cheap) but I think it would be better just to remove that as well and delete with no redirect. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. The one (1) source for this article is a webpage "under construction". Googling "Thibaut" with "La Marche" yields exclusively wikiverse and other user-generated hits. JoelleJay ( talk) 00:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete members of long deposed royal houses are not default notable, and nothing else suggests notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:57, 10 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 20:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

2003 ICC Americas Under-19 Championship

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

Is this really notable, it is an under 19 tournament featuring associates? I don't think it passes WP:CRIN While I think the under-19 world cup is notable does this really count? The only reason I haven't put it as WP:PROD is because of it being an ICC tournament albeit at under 19 level. All views welcome CreativeNorth ( talk) 16:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:SPORTSEVENT, which this doesn't seem to meet ("ICC Americas" is at least one or two steps below the main Under-19 World Cup, which I think is the "top series" being referred to by the guideline). M Imtiaz ( talk · contribs) 18:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep This tournament was a regional qualifier for the 2004 Under-19 Cricket World Cup as in that era, the qualifiers were by continent and not an overall Qualifier tournament which featured all regions. This page needs improving and not deleting. HawkAussie ( talk) 02:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete, principally a list of scores, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle ( talk) 15:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: Spiffy, so it was a regional qualifier for a youth tournament; what makes that notable? Not under SPORTSEVENT, NOTSTATS nor WP:ROUTINE, which it all fails. Beyond that, the "espncricinfo.com" source is a blatant press release which ends with "Support the World Cup bound Under-19s Team Canada and assist in pre World Cup outdoor and indoor training and preparation. Donations can be sent to the Canadian Cricket Association, 1185 Eglinton Avenue E, Suite 604, Toronto. Tax-deductible receipts are supplied for donations" -- it absolutely does not support notability. Ravenswing 06:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete, per M Imtiaz, who correctly points out that the subject fails WP:SPORTSEVENT - which is probably the best guideline for this discussion. Ifnord ( talk) 19:24, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

SSW railcar Dixie

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

non notable train car. Graywalls ( talk) 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Nothing notable found during search other than social media sites. Donaldd23 ( talk) 21:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete The railcar looks interesting, but zero notability is established for it. TH1980 ( talk) 04:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Does not have the coverage in reliable sources that is required for an encyclopedia article. -- Kinu ^t/_c 01:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per above. Non notable passenger carriage. Night fury 13:05, 10 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 don't find the provided sources to be in-depth coverage of the kind that GNG requires. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

TruckersMP

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

A mod for two video games. Not a single mention in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine. It's not mentioned in the articles Euro Truck Simulator 2 and American Truck Simulator (and why should it, when no RS'es have mentioned it), so I don't think redirecting is the way to go here. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Also note that all sources currently in the article are either primary (the mod's website, blog, and self-authored ModDB page) or tertiary (its forum). IceWelder [ ✉] 15:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - Literally every source used here is primary, and it has not been covered extensively by any reliable sources. Not notable and not something I can see being a redirect. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom -- Devokewater @ 15:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete As non-notable per nom. It's getting WP:SNOWy in here._{ZXCVBNM (
TALK)} 17:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Article was updated thanks to your feedback. TruckersMP was mentioned on multiple gaming news websites such as PCGamer^[1]^[2] or Eurogamer^[3] as well as other non-English pages which can be found here using Google News. LasseNiermann ( talk) 15:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 ( talk) 22:19, 11 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) 18:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Uladzimir Levaneuski

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

I am renominating this in light of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Refspam_across_many_articles which strongly indicates that the editor who created this and !voted keep at the previous AFD has a major conflict of interest. It does not appear as if WP:PROF is met, so the question is probably whether or not the political activities in Belarus are sufficient to meet WP:BIO. We could probably do with some Belarusian input on that. SmartSE ( talk) 14:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SmartSE ( talk) 14:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete can't find anything notability about him -- Devokewater @ 14:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep He has been mentioned in multiple reliable independent secondary sources, he has published and has some citations in Google Scholar [13], and at 34 he will probably publish more. I also would be interested in seeing Belarusian input. // Timothy :: talk 14:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Google Scholar citation record [14], while nonempty if you look for his name with the proper spelling, has far too few citations to pass WP:PROF#C1, and looks even weaker after checking reveals that many of those citations are self-citations. And I don't think his former activities as organizer of a minor and ineffective protest group rise to the level of WP:NPOL; it seems to be part of the same walled garden and COI that the nomination discusses. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Appears to be part of an assiduous promotional attempt. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Definitely insufficient citations to meet WP:NPROF, and no evidence passes any of the other criteria either. Might have more of a chance of passing WP:GNG based on the coverage, but again I'm not really convinced. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 21:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete based on above arguments that he does not meet NPROF. The idea that this is part of an insidious attempt to game the system (see the related COIN thread in the nom) bothers me a lot, although this is not a deletion criteria. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 23:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
delete nothing noteable (yet), may be just too early. -- hroest 18:21, 6 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. Adequate WP:RS to pass WP:GNG and per WP:PLACEOUTCOMES (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Omira, California

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

As one geocaching site says: where's the church? The only thing at the location now is a group of farm buildings which may well represent a single property: it was up for sale recently enough (as the "Omira Ranch") to show up on Google, but everything else is railroad-related. I see no evidence that there was ever a town. Mangoe ( talk) 14:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. Personally, I feel that if a location had a post office, then it was legally recognized and meets #1 of WP:GEOLAND. I acknowledge that others disagree, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)#Is_the_presence_of_Post_Office_sufficient_to_fulfill_legally_recognized_place?. Searching newspapers.com comes up with: a number of trivial classified ads, a trivial mention which states that the citizens of Omira subscribed to a memorial, some people moved from Omira and a dog walks 60 miles back home from Omira and the Omera station closed in 1927. These are all fairly trivial, but I feel the presence of the post office makes it notable. Cxbrx ( talk) 15:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Some of this is misleading. Stations were put in all sorts of places, and post offices as well, due to the constraints of train operation and postal delivery before RFD. The "residents of" is a bit better but still a little iffy. The roving dog is just a name drop. Mangoe ( talk) 15:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

(Ah, c'mon, the dog story was an interesting distraction... :-) ) Here's a 1998 article " County's towns have had various names that states "During this era new towns were being created such as Leavitt, Litchfield, Calneva, Stacy, Flanigan and Omira." Here's a birth by an Omira resident. " Laurence Jack Oatman, Omira," was called up to be examined for the WW I draft. And here's newlyweds being given a kitchen shower at Omira. These are all fairly trivial, but the preponderance of them does indicate that people lived there, but the trivial coverage is not in itself sufficient to make Omira notable. We disagree about whether the presence of a post office is sufficient for WP:GEOLAND #1. Disagreement is healthy, I realize that Omira will probably be deleted, which is OK. BTW - I thank you all your efforts going through these place articles, many of which were definitely not notable. Cxbrx ( talk) 17:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. An encyclopedia aims to be encyclopedic. Cxbrx has provided more than enough sources to show the location was regarded as a town in the past, so its current condition is simply irrelevant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 19:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep The sources found by Cxbrx establish that this was a real community, and one that had a post office. As far as I'm concerned, that's enough proof that we should have an article on it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•
Creation} 23:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep historical significance. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 04:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep as it has been established that this was a real community with a post office. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 17:13, 12 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. (non-admin closure) — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 18:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Mergan Ghappar

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

WP:BLP1E. There is no indication he is notable for any other reason than being held at a COVID-19 isolation facility (or, allegedly, a re-education camp).

The whole basis of the reporting from BBC et al is questionable, compare Prof. Jame Millward's (who was cited in the BBC link) WeChat screenshots from Ghapper's with the original. Note

The lack of the Mandarin profanity "SB" in the first screenshot of altered text at the Millward piece
The lack of the policeman emojis in the original, but littered all over the Millward screenshots CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 14:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 14:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - My view is the subject meets WP:GNG on the basis of media coverage. The progenitor for recent coverage of Ghappar is a BBC article that has since been referenced by many other WP:RS; howeber, a quick off-wiki search turns up resulting in many English-language sources ( Business Insider, The Guardian, Armenian Reporter, WION, etc) and a number of foreign language sources ( Sindonews, Yahoo News (French), Republica). This is sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO given the level of interest, and while most sources give the BBC article a majority of the credit, some (like the Yahoonews.fr source or this [ https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/08/05/merdan-ghappar-had-niets-met-politiek-maar-zit-toch-in-een-chinees-strafkamp-a4007941 Dutch article ( NRC Handelsblad) are not only reporting on the BBC's coverage but are also providing their own analysis of the texts and video the BBC published. This, in total, is enough to meet WP:GNG. SamHolt6 ( talk) 14:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

In addition, the nomination point strayed somewhat from the purpose of an AfD (see "or, allegedly, a re-education camp"). As an encyclopedia, we assume that WP:RS like the BBC have done their due diligence in reporting; if the nominator thinks the BBC made a mistake and published a misleading story, that is an issue for WP:RSN and not a discussion on notability. SamHolt6 ( talk) 14:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

The Yahoo News (French) and nrc.nl link provide no additional "analysis" beyond Millward's translations, please do not pretend otherwise. All of the pieces (whether credited to the BBC or no) ultimately center around Ghapper's confinement, and you omit that WP:GNG states that A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article; in other words, 'significant coverage' is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a stand-alone article. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 14:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:GNG is intentionally broad - notice it does not place any definite barrier to entry for an article, instead relying on presumptions and discussions (like this). As for the examples I gave, the Yahoo News.fr source links a tweet (made by Human Rights Watch's China director) discussing the case and provides more observations from Ghappar's video (it also reports on the BBC coverage), while the Dutch source (NRC) is capped with an analysis of the importance of Ghappar's material by Adrian Zenz - which a quick search shows is not in the BBC article. SamHolt6 ( talk) 15:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Again, both "analyses" stem entirely from Ghapper's confinement, not any other aspects of his life that we do not already know about (e.g. birth in Kucha, Taobao modeling, previously in Guangzhou). Considering the controversy at Talk:Adrian Zenz, Zenz should not be used as a gauge on "importance" for anything but himself, the Jamestown Foundation, and Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 15:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Notability is not temporary ( Wikipedia:NTEMP). If a topic has accrued significant coverage (my case for GNG is outlined above) once, it is presumed to meet GNG. As for Adrian Zenz, the veracity of his statements and opinions is not what is being considered here. SamHolt6 ( talk) 15:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. The BLP1E argument is a red herring. As the subject is the central figure in the event, BLP1E would not call for deletion, but a decision as to whether to reframe the argument as "Detention of Mergan Ghappar". But BLP1E on its face does not apply; Ghappar was involved in at least three noteworthy events: two discrete detentions, and smuggling out information on conditions in concentration camps. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 20:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Coverage of the detention meets WP:GNG per SamHolt6, although the article may need to be moved to Detention of Merdan Ghappar if coverage of Ghappar's life before detention remains sparse. Note that most English-language reliable sources use the name "Merdan Ghappar" instead of "Mergan Ghappar". — Newslinger talk 09:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

The tip about some sources referring to the subject as "Merdan Ghappar" returns more sources (for those interested). For example, this article published in India Today seems to be adding to the story (it mentions that some claim Ghappar's brother has also been incarcerated, which was not mentioned in the BBC article) implying continuing coverage of the topic. SamHolt6 ( talk) 13:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep coverage is sufficient to satisfy GNG as per SamHolt6. Article may need a rename, but it should not be deleted. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 13:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - satisfies WP:GNG - widely reported. A rename to something like "Detentions of and direct report by Merdan Ghappar from a Xinjiang concentration camp" is a different issue (this particular suggestion for a rename is unlikely to satisfy WP:TITLE). Boud ( talk) 21:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Per sources. BabbaQ ( talk) 09:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, almost nothing is known about Xinjiang. I had people calling for the deletion of the sole state-run media organ of Xinjiang Tianshannet not too long ago, and I have done work-ups on stubs in Xinjiang for areas larger than many countries. If it is deleted, the info should be rolled into another page and not deleted to be forgetten. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 23:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - Definitely passes WP:GNG. Agree that a retitling might be necessary but the article should be kept. -- Dane ^talk 02:58, 9 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 without prejudice to recreation if better sources can be found $Salvio$ 08:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Fatehpur Inscription

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

Previously draftified to allow author to add sources demonstrating notability. They instead added irrelevant references and moved it back to article space.

The Department of Archaeology reference is a single line in a 25-page list (which supports it being in Chittagong District, but contradicts the article's assertion that it's in Fatehpur Union (Hathazari)).
Banglapedia doesn't mention this inscription, but briefly mentions other inscriptions at a mosque in Chittagong City, 20 km from Hathazari Upazila.
The third source mentions other inscriptions at the opposite end of the country, in Thakurgaon District, but not this inscription.

Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, and ProQuest, including by Bengali script, found other "Fatehpur" inscriptions elsewhere on the subcontinent (such as the Reh Inscription), but not another word about this one in reliable sources. Alas, the Department of Archaeology (Bangladesh) is penniless and toothless. An artefact being on one of their survey lists doesn't give it the clout that being a listed building in the UK or being on the historic register in the US does. It is not enough, in the absence of any significant coverage by reliable sources, to meet WP:GNG. Even if one believed differently, WP:NOPAGE would apply. Worldbruce ( talk) 12:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 12:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 12:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I think it requires to get deleted, while I even did a little research on that but didn't find much reliable sources. I am afraid that Worldbruce is right. But I request Worldbruce not be personal. Don't use some world that insults me or my country. You should be polite. One more thing thing I would like to say that there's more sources like the first one here and here, But It's truly impossible to find more information rather than just a list. A. Shohag 13:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete, it seems there is agreement that the article should now be deleted. There is clearly scope for articles on major inscriptions of the region, but this particular one (if it exists) is not notable. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Chiswick Chap: I believe, it is. But the archaeological department is still working on the project. If research went on, It will be updated on web. But for right now they just listed it. A. Shohag 11:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, To the admin I request you to check what the sources said. And also as previously mentioned, If any research went on people very much likely will add text there. Thanks. A. Shohag 14:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
- It's commendable that you've replaced the second and third references, which were irrelevant. However, you've replaced them with the same one-line list entry as the first source, just from other versions of the list on different websites. The same Department of Archaeology content duplicated in multiple places is counted as one source. And no matter how many times those five words are repeated, they still don't amount to significant coverage. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 17:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 16:56, 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. Wide agreement here that the subject does not meet Wikipedia’s criterion of notability for an article. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 12:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Prince Nikola of Yugoslavia (born 1958)

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

This is an incredibly obscure person. He does no princely stuff whatsoever and one would be hard pressed to find references to him in the media. Genealogy publications are virtually the only sources that can verify that he even exists. Whatever he does in life he does very privately and subtly, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to cover him. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom Devokewater @ 16:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete This article has been flagged as having multiple problems for some time. It is also unlikely that he is a Protestant, which he would have to be to put him in the UK line of succession. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete , no indication of notability. Smeat75 ( talk) 19:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Refs include two user-generated sources and two primary sources, all of which mention him only in passing. JoelleJay ( talk) 06:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Grandchildren of ruling monarchs are usually considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Says who? Where? That's classic WP:INVALIDBIO. That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. Everyone's notability is dependent solely on significant coverage in reliable sources. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Not to mention he wasn't born until after the abolition of the monarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 ( talk) 13:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Exactly, as a general rule grandchildren of monarchs may tend to be regarded as notable, but this also tends to apply if they are part of an actually reigning royal family. PatGallacher ( talk) 14:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete, clear fail of WP:GNG, only sources are primary or unreliable. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete, page hasn't any reliable source about the notability. Ahmetlii ( talk) 11:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete there is a total lack of any sign of notability. Being part of a deposed royal house does not make one notable, and not every descendant of Queen Victoria is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
delete Notability isn't inherited, unlike nobility. Being the long lost grand child of someone notable, doesn't make them notable even if they are nobility unless they are pretty much next in line to cede the throne. If that weren't the case, I'd have an article. After all, my 7th grandfather or so is George Washington (and no, i'm not proud of it.) Praxidicae ( talk) 16:23, 8 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 John Cioffi. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

ASSIA (company)

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 11:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Redirect to John Cioffi -- Devokewater @ 19:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect – fails independent notability per nominator. ☆ Bri ( talk) 19:20, 8 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) 12:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Samuel Asare Akuamoah

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

Notability is unclear due to sources provided in the article, that aren't independent of the subject, I think that this article should be merged into National Commission for Civic Education article because it doesn't qualify for a stand-alone article. It's also an autobiography. EditQwerty ( talk) 11:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. EditQwerty ( talk) 11:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. EditQwerty ( talk) 11:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Very few independent reliable sources available; the few that I saw aren't adequate to meet general notability, and none of the positions he's held seem to be ones that would give presumptive notability under WP:NPOL. Basically a civil servant just doing his job. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 16:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete a low level public servant who does not pass our notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per EditQwerty ( talk · contribs) and PohranicniStraze ( talk · contribs), does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Nathan2055^{talk -
contribs} 21:26, 10 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) 11:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Umar Irshad

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST, not mentioned in reliable sources. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:ARTIST. After searching online, I only found social media or job-related items. Netherzone ( talk) 13:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Might just be WP:TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 14:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Non notable artist. Fails GNG. ULTan2 ( talk) 18:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom Devokewater @ 19:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Unfortunate that this artist does not meet WP:GNG becuase the work is unique! Perhaps just WP:TOOSOON and someday we can write this article with proper sources. Terasaface ( talk) 14:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Could not find anything online about him. As others are saying it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. CreativeNorth ( talk) 10:46, 11 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. Guy makes a strong argument that the sourcing consists of "superficial referenciness", and I don't feel that the opposing argument overcomes this point. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Wikirank.net

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating this in light of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Refspam_across_many_articles as in the previous AFD the first four keep !votes were all socks. If we exclude all of the references from the spamming group, are there any which demonstrate WP:NWEB is met? SmartSE ( talk) 11:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SmartSE ( talk) 11:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ DGG, Mackensen, Power~enwiki, and Mardetanha: as the non-sock participants from before. SmartSE ( talk) 11:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. This article is spam, which is a bad start, but more to the point, while it has superficial referenciness, the sources are inevitably either affiliated, unreliable, or do not make substantial mention of the subject. Example: 10.1177/0165551511416065 is cited as a source for "WikiRank uses different important normalized measures [e.g.] text length" but the paper neither mentions wikirank nor cites its creators. The only papers that do cite it prominently are written by people associated with it. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Per nom and Guy's comment. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 13:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - an important project which has been cited independently. The flaws appear to be errors in the article, which is easily salvageable and should not be deleted because it's merely incorrect in places. EllenCT ( talk) 18:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
- @ EllenCT: of the five papers listed there, only two are independent citations. Whatsmore, they are citations of a paper, not coverage of this website, and only contain extremely scant commentary:
- 2020 perspective on “Scalable modelling and recommendation using wiki-based crowdsourced repositories:” Fairness, scalability, and real-time recommendationAdditionally, Lewoniewski et al. (2019) provide a multilingual ranking of Wikipediaarticles using quality and popularity assessment. The results show that the quality and popularity of a wiki-based article depend highly on the language.
- Information Quality Flaws in Wikipedia by Using Classical and Deep Learning ApproachesSince then, several classification approaches to tackle quality flaw prediction and IQ assessment in Wikipedia have been proposed [1,8,9,11–13,24,30,33,35]
- It doesn't come anywhere near to near to demonstrating that WP:NWEB is met. SmartSE ( talk) 22:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

As per NWEB, please, "consider whether it has had any ... demonstrable effects on ... literature, science, or education." I am more than willing to make the case if you can't see it. How long, for example, have the authors been processing Wikipedia data in order to illustrate attractive open tasks on several language wikipedias? Have you researched their web hit volume? I am not a huge fan of their tool, as I consider their categories far too few. EllenCT ( talk) 23:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ EllenCT: The key word there is demonstrable - meaning that there are reliable sources demonstrating an effect. Where are they? SmartSE ( talk) 08:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

possibly Keep. as before , but remove the refspam. Alternatively, , and preferred, , consider a move into WP space., DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ DGG: I'm truly baffled by your previous rationale which you still seem to stand by Usage as the primary method of research in multiple scientific papers is a justification for notability - it doesn't appear to have any basis in policy. Further, what will be left if it the spammed references and the references which predate the website being created (!) are removed? DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC) SmartSE ( talk) 08:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I certainly stand by my previous rationale, and very strongly so: the basic WP:GNG is that something has substantial coverage in RSs, and significant use of a particular technical in multiple reliable journals is an ideal example of just that. But in this particular case, even if such use were clearly demonstrated, upon re-reading tonight the article, the publication, and the website, I think the material would be better rewritten for WP space, with a soft redirect, (I adjusted my repsonse to indicate this more clearly, and I therefore thank you for your comment.) DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Spam spam spam, it should have been deleted the first time Mardetanha ( talk) 09:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom -- Devokewater @ 21:07, 6 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. Stifle ( talk) 15:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Partisaani

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

A WP:BEFORE search in both en anf fi did not bring up coverage of this online newspaper. Also, while going through the sources I couldn't find in depth coverage of the newspaper (using G-translate). May not pass WP:NNEWSPAPER or WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. The article on fi-wp has also been created today. Bingobro (Chat) 10:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 10:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 10:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Not notable. No coverage in reliable sources, the only non-primary sources are original research connections. -- Pudeo ( talk) 17:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Pudeo summed it up well. There is no coverage, and the Finnish WP article mentioned by the nominator was also deleted. - kyykaarme ( talk) 12:48, 11 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) 09:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Bank Manager

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

An article about a Bollywood film, unsourced except to (non- WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up the plot, from what looks like the press pack and of a copy of it in muvyz.com (both our article and the IMDb entry lack the plot); but nothing RS. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert ( talk) 09:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete, per nom. Donaldd23 ( talk) 11:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 17:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete All such films are fated to be deleted because of WP:NFO#2. Local sourcing is almost impossible to find. - hako9 ( talk) 18:19, 5 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 Electrical injury#Torture. Sandstein 09:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Parrilla (torture)

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

Wikipedia is not a non-English dictionary. Furthermore, Electric shock torture redirects to more informative text. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge to Electrical injury#Torture (the target of the redirect Electric shock torture). "Parrilla" has been used in WP:RS English-language sources: see Sheila Cassidy, and an off-wiki search for "Sheila Cassidy parrilla" will tell you more than you want to know. I had forgotten her name but knew exactly what to look for, and she was the first result in my Google search. Narky Blert ( talk) 10:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. This is a historically specific term linked to regimes in various South American countries in the mid- to late 20th century. I've added to the article—I don't think it's just a dicdef anymore. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 15:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge to Electrical injury#Torture. I agree that the term "Parrilla" is still relevant to electrical torture in general (as pointed out by Narky Blert). However, despite a few examples from South American countries, it doesn't appear that this article can be expanded much beyond a definition (see WP:NOT#DICDEF guideline 1). TripleShortOfACycle ( talk - contribs) 23:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Merge to Electrical injury#Torture per user TripleShortOfACycle.-- Darius ( talk) 00:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 16:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 16:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 16:12, 5 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. (non-admin closure) — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 08:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

List of European advertising characters

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

Not a notable topic, doesn’t meet wp:listn or wp:gng Boleyn ( talk) 07:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep If one looks past the clean-up tag, it becomes clear that this is part of a set:

So, it doesn't make sense to consider the topic in isolation. There are lots of famous advertising characters and there are entire books about them such as Meet Mr Product. The nomination's claims are false and so we reject them. " Simples!"

Andrew🐉( talk) 08:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Boleyn: How instead do you think our articles on advertising characters, as found in Category:Advertising characters, should be listed? postdlf ( talk) 12:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi, user:postdlf, I don’t think they do need to be listed, just categorised. Boleyn ( talk) 20:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Because...? postdlf ( talk) 21:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't see any evidence it is a notable topic. Boleyn ( talk) 05:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

That what is? That’s nonresponsive because it just repeats your unexplained nomination. We have articles on advertising characters. We list articles by what they are. You’re not addressing that (or any arguments presented here actually) and notability does not divide lists from categories in that regard. Categories are even more strict per WP:OCAT, if anything. postdlf ( talk) 17:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm gonna just sit on the fence on this one, other than to say that the list as it currently stands (and essentially has done for some years) is almost entirely made up of UK brands and characters, so calling it 'European' seems excessively expansive. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
KEEP Lists are more useful than categories, more information can be presented. If its notable enough of a thing to be grouped by a category then it is also notable enough to have a list. Plenty of blue links, aids in navigation, that the point of a list article. Dream Focus 14:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:CLN, WP:NOTDUP. Lists are useful discovery, navigation and reading tools and work well alongside other navigation tools such as cats and navigation templates. Bluelink are an indicator this has value. // Timothy :: talk 15:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. Nom presents absolutely no reasoned analysis supporting the nomination, which ought to result in an automatic speedy keep. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 20:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - This is a useful list of characters and passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:19, 9 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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Raymie ( t • c) 07:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

101.4 FM

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

No indication that the subject meets WP:GNG. Hitro talk 07:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reason given above:

Delete non notable Devokewater @ 10:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep All: Just because they aren't notable to us in the US, doesn't mean they aren't notable completely. They are notable to folks in the UK and Australia who use the 9 point frequency system (we use a 10 point on AM and a 2 point for FM). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:00 on August 6, 2020 (UTC) • #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
Keep: These are works in progress. These frequencies are used in a good portion of the world, but not every regulatory body puts the information online, so it takes time to add information obtained thru other notable sources (a la The World Radio TV Handbook). Stereorock ( talk) 16:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: Nom rationale is overly vague and we already have DABs of every common broadcast frequency worldwide. Nate • ( chatter) 22:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep all. The problem is lack of coverage of radio in Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand (even decimals are also used in Colombia, even though it is in ITU Region 2). Raymie ( t • c) 02:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Withdraw - Keep rationales are compelling. I'm withdrawing my nomination, I request this AfD to be closed. Hitro talk 06:54, 6 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 salt. Sandstein 09:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Davo (musician)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC.

On Talk:Davo (musician) is a detailed analysis of a previous incarnation's references. Many of those are still present. Some have been replaced with equal quality references. I could present a full analysis here, but you can assess them easily anyway.

This has been moved repeatedly from draft: space by the creating editor, moved back because it is for a non notable musician. Please do not suggest that this be draftified. A number of WP:AFC reviewers, me included, have tried hard to convince the editor that this needs referencing or it will not survive. This needs to be a hard delete and a salting, please.

All of the references are passing mentions, links to track downloads, videos. social media and similar. WP:BEFORE has not found any useful references. When the gentleman's career takes off he may have an article. just not today. Fiddle Faddle 07:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 07:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete No sourcing of any substance, fails WP:NMUSIC. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 07:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom Zoozaz1 ( talk) 04:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete as a not (yet) notable person failing WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE with insufficient coverage in reliable independent in-depth sources. The only non-trivial sources (billboard.com, hollywoodlife.com, miaminewtimes.com) are basically yellow press churnalism interviews with most content from the person. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 10:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Relevant AfC Help Desk discussion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 10:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note that the creating editor has just removed the AfD notice from the article, I have replaced it and warned them about removal Fiddle Faddle 22:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Timtrent, traits of an editor not here to build an encyclopedia. Celestina007 22:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Celestina007, I hope that you are wrong. I try to believe the best of every editor Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Falls short of any known notability criteria. This AFD by Timtrent is a good call as a G4 might come in handy in future as I anticipate this article to be recreated multiple times in future. Celestina007 22:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
delete absolutely garbage sourcing. Praxidicae ( talk) 00:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment The rapper has had a hit in quite serious numbers and he/she is probably notable. Is there no sources that can even satisfy WP:THREE as it is likely a new article will be re-created shortly. scope_creep^Talk 08:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - Does not satisfy either musical notability or general notability. The insistence of the submitter on pushing this page into article space is typical of undisclosed paid editing. In Wikipedia, there is no deadline; but there is a need for paid editors to get paid, so we need to deal with them. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Robert McClenon, I have left them a level 1 warning to require them to self declare or deny paid editing based upon my perception of their behaviour and your comment Fiddle Faddle 17:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment - See also the history of Davo, which has been salted due to previous tendentious re-creation. Should probably also salt the qualified title, and may need to consider the title blacklist. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Noting that Davo, which was salted in 2007 (and unsalted and resalted in 2012 for reasons entirely unconnected to content), had nothing to do with Davo the rapper. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 09:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Good note. That notwithstanding, the determination used to create this material suggests that a proper salting is a wise outcome Fiddle Faddle 10:10, 12 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. Stifle ( talk) 15:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Bloombase

AfDs for this article:

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

Rejected speedy deletion because I considered it a borderline case. Sending here for debate without further comment. Viridae ^{DON'T PANIC} 06:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Viridae ^{DON'T PANIC} 06:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete and Salt I'm not seeing what's borderline about this. The sources are garbage and it was already deleted in two other AfDs. Which is why it should be salted. There's zero point in this just being re-created again after it's deleted for a third time. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 05:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - None of the sources are usable to establish notability. I am unable to find any coverage in independent reliable sources. My search results are full of market analysis and press releases -- Whpq ( talk) 01:15, 11 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. (non-admin closure) - The9Man ^(
Talk) 12:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Oberoi International School

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

~~Notability is not inherited. No significant coverage and neither passing WP:ORG or WP:GNG to pass WP:NSCHOOL.~~

Keep. References are available. - The9Man ^(
Talk) 06:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(
Talk) 06:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep: As an international school, it is exceptional in not following the local defined curriculum- passing the Notability test. National Curriculum Framework (NCF 2005) and National Education Policy 2020 refer. I add the usual caveats about being poorly written, missing sections and needing expansion. ClemRutter ( talk) 09:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I understand we have some consensus guidelines for notability in Wikipedia. How come not following the National education policy makes it notable automatically with almost no significant references? Can you explain please? - The9Man ^(
Talk) 11:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. It is an international school that goes through high school. Searching online shows many sources.-- Hippeus ( talk) 11:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I suggest you to share a few out of many. - The9Man ^(
Talk) 13:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Read WP:NEXIST the onus is you to make the appropriate searches.Howdid you miss Education World India listing We here are not writing the article- just explaining it is of 'of note'. The schools specific guidelines just require that a school has one attribute that makes it different from every other school. That is offers IB, and not the contemporary Indian Provincial Curriculum or the UK National Curriculum is more than adequate. Help on the WP:WPSCHOOLS project is always welcome. ClemRutter ( talk) 12:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I have done my searches and didn't find 'many' reliable sources which has a significant coverage about the subject. I assusme you also done your searches and didn't find 'many' so ended up mentioning a directory site. A directory site (may) proves the existence but not notability (it has the listing of a preschool in my nearby corner which was closed 3 years ago).
However, if following the different curriculum makes a school automatically notable all this WP:RS arguments are invalid. If you could guide me where this is mentioned in Wikipedia it would be helpful for future, I think I have wasted my time focusing on WP:NSCHOOL. And thanks for the invitation as well. - The9Man ^(
Talk) 14:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Those who find the sourcing should add it to the article. The meaning of verifiability is that information added to Wikipedia should be linked to the sources used, and we should not add information that is not sourced. If an article is under discussion for deletion and you come across relevant sourcing you should add it to the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment As User:The9Man says, schools have to pass either WP:ORG or WP:GNG. If offering International Baccalaureate courses is such a remarkable thing for a school, where's all the sigcov about it? Zindor ( talk) 03:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep: I sympathise with the nominator as the refs currently being used are absolutely rubbish. But I could easily find independent coverage that establishes the school's notability. Here's a Hindustan Times Top Schools survey ranking it the 2nd best international school in the city; an India Today story reporting on its pastoral system and support for kids during Covid (I assume not just any school is covered); in-depth coverage in The Print that says "Oberoi International School is considered one of India’s premier academies" citing EducationWorld survey (which btw is the only significant school survey in India) that ranked it 3rd in 2016-17 and second in 2017-18. And for 2019-20 on Education World website, it stands 2nd. I'm sorry, but there's a clear lack of WP:BEFORE. I have added the refs to the article. Best, MaysinFourty ( talk) 10:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Your effort is appreciable. I surely missed these. - The9Man ^(
Talk) 12:06, 10 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. Cabayi ( talk) 11:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Stonelake

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 06:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Swedish heavy metal band. I am doubtful of their notability. The article does not cite any sources at all. It has no articles on other Wikipedias. The text is not encyclopedic at all: "After a good meal, a few beers, the interest grew to once more form a project" - stuff like this does not belong in an encyclopedia. The whole biography page also reeks of copy-paste - it was most likely copied from the band's site. I did a Google search and I couldn't find anything other than the standard unreliable sites. ( Results on Google) Even if there is an album review, an interview, or news about the band, they are featured on blog-like sites. Most of them also repeat the same text. And the rest of the results are just even worse as they are databases, streaming service links, social media pages, and stuff where the words are separated. I don't know if there are reliable sources in Swedish - there may be, but I don't speak the language and I can't track down print sources. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 06:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 06:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 06:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - at this time no trace of notability. BabbaQ ( talk) 11:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Still unsigned thus not easily notable. desmay ( talk) 05:23, 12 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. $Salvio$ 08:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Mappillai Pallavarayar

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

Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. WP:BEFORE (JSTOR and Google) revealed no sources providing coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. There is only an English transliteration of the name and no citations in the article that could indicate alternatives to search for (in English or other). // Timothy :: talk 04:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment just to note that another common spelling of the last name is Pallavairayar ( Nicholas Dirks uses that spelling), and it is possible that variants exists which drop the final r. - Sitush ( talk) 05:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Sitush Thank you for that information. I will work on some more BEFORE with it and see if I can find anything. // Timothy :: talk 05:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Dirks is probably the best bet as the kingdom referred to in the article was one of the "little kingdoms" of S India that he has made a central part of his studies. I do have his Hollow Crown book here but he has written a fair few papers, too. The other angle might be to see what turns up in studies of the Court of Wards (India). Also note that the kingdom itself has various spellings, eg: Thondaiman. I'll try to do some digging myself but would agree that it doesn't look good - I said as much here. - Sitush ( talk) 05:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Done some digging, including academic databases available via Wikipedia Library and my former university. There is nothing about this guy. Therefore, delete. - Sitush ( talk) 19:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 08:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:26, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 06:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Municipal Council of Istanbul

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

Merge and redirect to Istanbul#Administration.

The article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE reveals no signifcant coverage in Wp:RS that are independent of the subject that addresses the topic directly and in detail, only WP:ROUTINE coverage about issues taht the council has dealt with. // Timothy :: talk 04:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 04:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Istanbul is the largest city in Europe, twice the size of London or New York. Its governing Council is in the news more or less every day. It is as clearly notable as New York City Council and the London Assembly. I can spend some time assembling links to support this later today, but seriously! Mccapra ( talk) 06:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep Nomination withdrawn. per above. // Timothy :: talk 06:55, 5 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 04:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

A Drag Queen Christmas

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

Delete Stub article about a performance tour featuring little information about the tour, including dates and cities. Does not seem to be important enough to warrant its own article.-- Donaldduckedits ( talk) 04:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Strong keep: Did you even search for possible sources or assess secondary coverage? So far, your argument for deletion is 1) the article is a stub and 2) the subject "does not seem to be important enough". Neither are valid reasons for deletion. The tour has run for four years and there are plenty of sources confirming specific dates and reviewing specific performances. --- Another Believer _(
Talk) 04:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, on the surface this might seem unlikely but these tours by a cast of notable people, is essentially like a rock tour. Every stop gets at least a handful of media write-ups, and that it has repeated suggests they’re also getting reviews which can fill out an entire reception section.
This needs work but WP:DINC. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 05:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:BEFORE step D. There's a lot of routine coverage because it's a touring show, but there's significant coverage mixed in there as well. I think it satisfies the WP:GNG.
- Miami New Times ( December 2019) - substantial coverage of lineup and historical context of the show.
- Church Militant ( December 2019) - prominent Christian nationalist website covers the details of the performance itself and responds exactly as you'd expect
- Columbia Chronicle ( November 2019) - student newspaper writer provides review and critical commentary on the show with coverage of the themes and artistic choices behind them
- Slate ( February 2018) - contains coverage of controversies surrounding the 2016 tour and places that controversy in wider context
- The Georgia Voice ( December 2017) - covers the tour as a whole and places it in historical context
- Richmond Times-Dispatch ( November 2017) - in 2017 the primary daily newspaper of Richmond, Virginia found it significant enough to send a reporter to interview one of the headliners

Coverage in multiple regions, from multiple perspectives, across multiple tours suggests this is notable. — Wug· a·po·des 05:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, Donaldduckedits sorry buddy but this is a lazy delete nomination. A quick search shows there is relevant coverage. Before nominating an article for deletion, you have a responsibility to search for sources first per the AFD process. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per the sources identified by Wugapodes. — Toughpigs ( talk) 14:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. WP:BEFORE does not seem to have been done. A simple Google search yields numerous RS that can be used to expand the article, as Wugapodes showed above with several good examples. Nom rationale is not WP:PAG-based, either. Armadillopteryx^talk 14:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
SNOW Keep per everyone's seemingly easy finds to show sources WP:NEXIST. − 2pou ( talk) 15:36, 7 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 Grab (company)#History. $Salvio$ 08:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Anthony Tan

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

Spam article. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra ( talk) 14:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete Very promotional indeed, creator likely connected with subject. -- James Richards ( talk) 14:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. No evidence of notability, fails WP:ANYBIO, The edit history suggests possible CoI editing. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 15:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
~~Delete~~: Barely found anything about him. Definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL. Not to mention the name is common. ASTIG😎 _{(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE)} 16:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Weak delete Whilst there is some independent coverage, it's not significant. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 22:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply
~~Changed to weak delete, as some sources do exist. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 10:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)~~ reply

Weak keep Changing my vote again, based on sources found by CMD. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 10:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Founder of a very significant multinational company, and has received coverage stemming from this like many businesspeople [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. CMD ( talk) 01:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

What sources are these? Every single one is these is paid PR. Every single one them, has a picture of him smiling. Every single one of them are primary. All of them state Grab co-founder Anthony Tan in form or another, in the opening sentence. Non of them represent the intellectually indepedent, reliable, secondary sources that are required to prove notability. scope_creep^Talk 09:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

The sources there include the Financial Times and the South China Morning Post. Are they generally considered primary paid PR? The photos do show him smiling though. CMD ( talk) 10:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

The South China Morning Post states: Anthony Tan, co-founder and chief executive officer of Grab, poses for a photograph in their Singapore office. It is paid PR. scope_creep^Talk 11:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

How does a caption describing a photo obtained from Bloomberg make it paid PR? CMD ( talk) 12:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Bloomberg is a paid service. It is costs around 24k a year, which is expensive but not for a cbillionaire. You get your picture taken, you get a profile listing, so it comes from that, and you get the terminal. scope_creep^Talk 14:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

The article is not a bloomberg profile. CMD ( talk) 15:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and the other comment above. Olaf Kosinsky ( talk) 15:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more analysis of CMD's sources, which were presented relatively late in the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom Devokewater @ 09:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
A few more sources: Business Times (from Singapore), Bangkok Post, China Times (from Taiwan), the Harvard and Forbes profiles are already in the article, and brief mentions/listings include Fortune listing and Nikkei award. No evidence has been put forward that "every single one" of these is paid PR, or that any individual one is. In addition, the subject is mentioned in all sorts of easily found sources in connection to Grab that might qualify within "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". CMD ( talk) 11:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

The first two are PR style WP:PUFF pieces. The photograph on the first is copyright GRAB, so they are both PR style press releases. The second one Mr Tan's daily routine is simple. He works out at a gym, prays (he is a devout Christian), and works on his e-mail. He says he turns down almost 95% of invitations and most media interviews because his schedule is already quite occupied. is also PR WP:PUFF. The third one is a company ref and again PR. No one is saying that there is not coverage. It is the type of coverage. Its not intellectually-independent, reliable and a secondary source. It is all WP:PUFF, all of it to advertise his business. scope_creep^Talk 11:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Also these X of Y, 40 under 40 are non-notable per policy. The second is notable, but has been award to the company, Grab. scope_creep^Talk 12:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

The sources I've listed are newspapers and other sources independent of Grab interviewing and profiling the CEO of a very visible multi-national company. The pieces are quite positive, but this is hardly uncommon, and is not evidence of all of these sources from unrelated outlets all being paid advertisements. The copyright of photos used, and that the photos have the subject smiling, are unusual attributes on which to stake claims of puffery. Further, you have misread the Nikkei source, as the award went to the individuals, not to the company. CMD ( talk) 12:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Chipmunkdavis. I have been working on the coin noticeboard for 10 years and the spam noticeboard for 5 years and I can spot a press release or PR release very easily. You can't because you have only 36 Afd's where I've done more 2000 odd. You can't seem to differentiate between them, and you assume because it in the good newspapers, somehow it is actually valid, when it is now the reverse. Good newspaper publish press releases and PR like its going out of fashion. They will publish anything that gets the money, to keep them afloat. In the 90's, good newspapers like The Times, the Guardian, the Scotsman, Japan Times, Baltimore Sun, The LA Times, the NY Times, Der Spiegel, Zeit Online, Nigeria Independent wouldn't spit on the press release, or PR, before the internet. Now with social media and tech companies like Google and Facebook crucifying them, stealing their content and business, they now publish stuff they wouldn't have looked in the 90's. So it is bit puzzling why you insist on pushing these spammy sources without a valid reason and against the current consensus. As regards the award, it is under the winners for economic and business innovation. According to the article, the section used to be called Regional Growth. It is certainly a notable award as it has an article, but insufficient coverage and extensive spammy nature of many reference don't engender much in the way of confidence that there is sufficient coverage. scope_creep^Talk 14:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

In addition. Forbes is deprecated. It is a spammy source well. scope_creep^Talk 14:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I'm already familiar with that aspect of the industry, including Forbes. I'm open to the idea that some or all of these pieces are paid for, but the assertion would be more convincing if it wasn't based on the source of a photo's copyright, and whether subjects in photos are smiling. I'm providing sources because that's one of the advised actions on AfD. On the Nikkei source I was correcting the assertion that the award wasn't to the individuals, and I can't tell from your reply whether that is noted or not. There is as I said above a wide variety of sources where he is mentioned, not trivially but not as the focus, with the focus being his actions within Grab, or interviews based on his position as CEO. CMD ( talk) 00:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Suggest redirect to Grab (company)#History since he's mentioned there and isn't notable for anything other than his work with Grab. ~ KN2731 { talk · contribs} 16:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Grab (company)#History: Changed my vote, per KN2731. As a valid WP:ATD. ASTIG😎 _{(
ICE T •
ICE CUBE)} 05:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Grab (company)#History per KN2731. A valid WP:ATD. // Timothy :: talk 17:04, 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 keep. The article passes WP:NOLY (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 04:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Michel Boulos

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

Delete - This is not at all a notable subject. If this subject is notable, then every semi-professional athlete would be. Also, there's only one source. Doing a quick Google search, there is really nothing that can be found about him. It seems like he himself, or someone close to him such as a relative, friend, or representative, made this page for him. Factfanatic1 ( talk) 02:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep: as an Olympian, very clearly passes WP:NOLY. St Anselm ( talk) 03:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment, can someone point out some examples of where he received significant coverage in reliable sources? Having a look at newspapers.com, there's a lot of routine sporting coverage but not a huge amount of detail. Hack ( talk) 04:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Olympian and multiple medal-winner (including gold) and the Pan-America Games. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS. Mccapra ( talk) 06:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS. Try and remember that there have been times when all Olympic athletes were semi-professional athletes - or even full amateurs. MarnetteD| Talk 21:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Seems like the nom has another reason to try and get this deleted.... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Factfanatic1: - why do you keep removing the hatnote from Michael Boulos when it's clear that the two names (regardless of who they are) can be confused? Michael vs Michel. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep per NOLYMPICS. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 13:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep meets WP:NOLYMPIC, and main rationale for deleting appears to be so this name can be redirected to another article. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:43, 8 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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Jithin Majeed

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

May not be notable, and created by an individual abusing multiple accounts as confirmed by Commons Checkuser at the Undeletion requests on Commons (Please see: c:Special:PermaLink/437201316#File:Jithin Majeed On Set Sunrise.jpg) Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Please note that a draft ( Draft:Jithin Majeed) was rejected multiple times and the article was created to circumvent the AFC process. Pinging @ Dan arndt, DGG who reviewed and rejected the draft submissions. -- Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete, appears to be notable for a single event - winning a regional student award (non-notable award) for a short documentary (questionable notability) - and then not being able to attend the award ceremony. Fails to satisfy the criteria under WP:NCREATIVE. Dan arndt ( talk) 04:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, notable for one of the highest honours in television production in the world, i.e. RTS Award (Regional or otherwise), refer Producers_Alliance_for_Cinema_and_Television guidlines. Lifted from WP:NCREATIVE, The person's work (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition (RTS Awards 2020), (c) won significant critical attention (RTS Craftskills award for camerawork & ongoing media attention in South India) which should satify WP:NCREATIVE. ( paintitkid) 08:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: This individual was also instrumentalal in propelling Operation_Sulaimani, refer The Hindu. ( paintitkid) 09:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

1) That The Hindu link does not reference Operation Sulaimani, let alone describe Majeed as "instrumental" thereto and 2) The Operation Sulaimani article, whose editors are disinterested third-parties with respect to Majeed (unlike the article under discussion, whose sole substantive editors are you and your sock), does not reference Majeed (!!!). Quite the glaring omission for someone purportedly "instrumental." Эlcobbola _talk 14:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete per Dan arndt. No demonstration that subject has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" per WP:N. Эlcobbola _talk 14:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, I mentioned The individual's involvement in Operation Sulaimani as a side note, nonetheless it is important. The Hindu specifically refers to it at the very end of the article if you see, the style of writing is very much Malabar Coast English, which might be the reason the significance did not translate. It is typical of The Hindu. Nonetheless, this does not invalidate the crux of the article or the individuals claim to notability in cinematography (!!!). The Individual has and is continuing to appear on syndicated news networks and daily offline material (such as Madhyamam) every month for the last year (please refer sources online) - MediaOne - MediaScan , Indian Express which satisfies the 'notabaility over a period of time' criteria. The case of the sock was an honest mistake, I have had the filmassoc account in the past, but did not realise I was using that account instead of this one. As my browser logs in to a default account when accessing Wikipedia, it sometimes gets mixed up between the accounts (Login detail are saved); which I did not realise. Will be careful moving forward. ( paintitkid) 16:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comment. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE 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"". Some WP:ROUTINE coverage exists. Might just be WP:TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 17:09, 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 WP:SNOW keep. Consensus is clear, and immediate. BD2412 T 18:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Nazar Najarian

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

Not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Did not have a page until the 2020 Beirut explosions. ImYourTurboLover ( talk) 00:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ImYourTurboLover ( talk) 00:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, notable person, already mentioned in a lot of books like: Secrets of the Lebanon War ( Alain Ménargues, 2004) and Valley of Tears: The National Resistance and the Israeli Occupation in South Lebanon (Faisal Jalloul, 1986) also on reliable sources like this one. Sources linked him directly with Bachir Gemayel, Lebanese Civil War and Samir Geagea -- Alaa :)..! 00:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

"Didn't have an article until his involvement with a disaster today" is not a reason to assume someone doesn't meet notability criteria. Marwan Abboud didn't have an article until today either, and he's the governor, which definitely meets notability. DS ( talk) 00:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep seems to be notable, two of the three references come before the explosion today, therefore I don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies here. It is common for biographical articles to be started after the subject's death, as sometimes more information or coverage is made public then. Inter&anthro ( talk) 01:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep. There are many living notable people about whom we don't yet have articles. Obituaries are common ways (a bit belated) of identifying such omissions. No valid grounds supporting deletion advanced. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! ( talk) 01:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per everyone else. Love of Corey ( talk) 04:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - a secretary general of any political party or other organization is so obviously notable enough for a basic stub seeking expansion. Another frivolous deletion request. Ref ^(chew) (do) 05:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per aforementioned points. GerifalteDelSabana ( talk) 07:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep seems notable enough. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 08:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep "Didn't have an article until his involvement with a disaster today". Ridiculous argument. Alsoriano97 ( talk) 09:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Snowball Keep Meets GNG. That there was no article until his early death is SOP on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, he is notable enough Egeymi ( talk) 10:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, oh you are so respectful of the dead. I wonder how his family thinks of your deletion request! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.67.207 ( talk) 10:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, why would you say he's not notable enough? Kirils ( talk) 10:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, obviously notable, Bacus15 ( talk) 11:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, not having an entry before death is not grounds to delete a page, otherwise anyone dying before 2001 would need deleting. 2A00:23C8:4F16:6201:E4EF:5F12:386C:E0AC ( talk) 12:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep per sources that predate his death noted above establishing WP:Notability beyond WP:ONEVENT and suggest WP:SNOW close per overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS to keep. The reason a Lebanese politician did not have an English-language Wikipedia article prior to his violent death is likely to be WP:Systemic bias, which we should not compound by deleting the article. TompaDompa ( talk) 12:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - Quick WP:SNOW. Ridiculous argument, no need to keep this entry open.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 16:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Not a valid rationale for deletion presented by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Snowball Keep GNG. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 18:01, 5 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.

^ Savage, Phil (2013-12-13). "Euro Truck Simulator 2's multiplayer mod releases early video of convoy action". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2020-08-11.
^ Kelly, Andy (2019-02-13). "How Euro Truck Simulator 2 became an unlikely cult hit on PC". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2020-08-11.
^ Purchese, Robert (2019-02-01). "The Truck Simulator radio stations making waves in the real world". Eurogamer. Retrieved 2020-08-11.

[1] Savage, Phil (2013-12-13). "Euro Truck Simulator 2's multiplayer mod releases early video of convoy action". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2020-08-11.

[2] Kelly, Andy (2019-02-13). "How Euro Truck Simulator 2 became an unlikely cult hit on PC". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2020-08-11.

[3] Purchese, Robert (2019-02-01). "The Truck Simulator radio stations making waves in the real world". Eurogamer. Retrieved 2020-08-11.

[1]

[2]

[3]