From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 18 September 20 September >
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 delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Subhalekha + Lu

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

Cannot find any reliable reviews. Therefore, original research must be made to add information for the film. TamilMirchi ( talk) 23:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 23:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 23:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Searching for reviews - there are many - that go beyond a paltry four line description - seems a task that wastes time. It seems there are no critical reviews of this movie. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 05:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete due to concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 12:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As noted above, I can't see any RS for this. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 16:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Samuel Legg

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

Following BLPN discussion, this article should be deleted as a violation of WP:BLPCRIME + egregious BLP violations. The subject has not yet been convicted of any crime as of today [1], except "malicious evasion of alimony"... Yet our article says " is an American serial killer and rapist responsible for the murders of at least five women in Ohio and Illinois during the 1990s" + "suspicion of killing his 14-year-old stepdaughter, but he was only exposed in 2019, thanks to DNA profiling". Currently, he has not faced trial for any charges due to mental capacity, thus no conviction. The article cannot be salvaged currently, so I don't think anything less than deletion will resolve the issue. I've no issue with recreation if the subject ends up convicted, or dies, but in the meantime it's a BLP violation. An admin may wish to invoke WP:BLPDELETE on this / Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deangelo_Martin. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 23:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Based on the information noted by the nominator, that the subject of the article in fact hasn't been convicted of the charges that the article discusses, it would seem this article should be deleted until the issue is resolved. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 16:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Star of the Family

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

The only source for this article is IMDB, and by Wikipedia:RS/IMDB, that is "mostly user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation, rumor, and hoaxes. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged" Huldra ( talk) 23:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Huldra ( talk) 23:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This is a sitcom that aired on ABC in 1982; like pretty much every US network primetime show, it got newspaper coverage and reviews. I added five sources, including a Gannett News Service article, " Teen savors life as overnight star"; a review from The Pittsburgh Press, " Two Sitcoms Nicely Mine Human Nature"; and another review from Gannett, " 'Star of the Family': Good idea gone awry". —  Toughpigs ( talk) 02:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The article isn't a plain IMDB mirror as insinuated by the nominator. Considering how difficult it is to find sources for programming in the '80s, seven reliable references from newspaper archives are enough to keep the article on the basis of WP:SIGCOV. TheRedDomitor ( talk) 15:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per toughpigs, the sitcom has enough coverage to pass wp:sigcov --☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 16:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sitcom starring mainstream stars (including Brian Dennehey) ariing on ABC, with RS to support. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 16:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 04:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Abu Yasir

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

WP:BLP of a singer, not reliably sourced as passing any notability criterion in WP:NMUSIC. The claim here is that he's the singer of an anthem, but he's not automatically notable just because his music exists -- and the sources are a streaming platform and a blog entry that isn't about him, which are not notability-supporting sources. If he isn't the subject of any substantive coverage in real media, then he doesn't get a Wikipedia article regardless of what song he did or didn't sing. Bearcat ( talk) 23:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 23:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 23:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the singer is not notable as per WP:NMUSIC --☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 16:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Under both "Abu Yasir" and the native version "أبو ياسر", he is only present in the usual self-created streaming and social media sites in both languages. The article's statements on his influence and importance are surely exaggerated. –– DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 01:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. Sandstein 10:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

PDSA Certificate for Animal Bravery or Devotion

PDSA Certificate for Animal Bravery or Devotion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. There is only once citation which isn't from the group giving the award, and the award has been discontinued and none of these pages exist anymore. Dan Bloch ( talk) 22:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to PDSA since there are very few secondary sources to make it standalone article. --☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 16:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to PDSA. Mccapra ( talk) 06:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – bradv 🍁 01:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Jessie Lavington Evans

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

I'm a bit torn on whether this passes WP:NARTIST or not. Her work has been shown in a few galleries, but as temporary exhibitions, and there's only one column by a major art critic cited. This seemingly perfectly straddles the line of notability for artists set forth by WP:NARTIST, and I could legitimately go either way on it; I'm hoping AfD can get some more experienced eyes on it if nothing else. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 21:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 21:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 21:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 21:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 21:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 21:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 21:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning delete Except for finding school age prizes for artistic endeavors, I struck out with Newspapers.com, the Internet Archive, and Google Books. A general web search wasn't that fruitful either. However, I've seen dramatic improvements by Australian editors on these kinds of articles, so I don't doubt that it might be rescued. A new reference might be the Summer 2006-7 issue of the Brighton Historical Society Journal where she is featured. Her work does come up for sale at auction. So far it doesn't pass WP:GNG Curiocurio ( talk) 23:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I'm going to switch sides here and vote Keep. There are probably enough sources out there to sustain an article, per WP:NEXIST, only that it would require consulting physical copies in archives and libraries. Curiocurio ( talk) 17:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep. Note that her middle name is sometimes indicated as "Laver". There seems to be some additional coverage of her in Completing the Picture: Women Artists and the Heidelberg Era (1992), but I'm only able to see snippets on gbooks. The snippets include references to additional texts, but I can't see the content of the footnotes. I'm also seeing some references to More Than Just Gum Trees (1993) which apparently describes her, but doesn't seem to be available on-line. Given these clues and the age of the subject, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume sources exist off-line. pburka ( talk) 00:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete An 1890 newspaper clipping, a self published gallery catalog, a self published Wix website is not enough coverage to meet WP:NARTIST "primary subject of an independent and notable work". Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 01:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Except, that's probably not all the sources there are. The editors above have mentioned there might be journal articles and books. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, "I struck out with Newspapers.com, the Internet Archive, and Google Books. A general web search wasn't that fruitful either", people, people, people, this person is an ozzie so the go to place is Trove that yields some tantalising hits: a couple of articles from the Albury and District Historical Society Bulletin, and "Biographical cuttings files contain cuttings, e.g. articles, obituaries, from Australian newspapers and journals from the early 20th century to 2000.", plus as a Trove person here that lists a couple of exhibitions - "A Century of Australian Women's Art (1880s-1990s)", and "The Other Side of the Coin: Women artists from the Albury collection", plus a gsearch did bring up article in the Brighton Historical Society Journal, unfortunately unless someone can access physical copies of these ... Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Coolabahapple I'm an Aussie living in Melbourne, and i dissagree, - while trove is the place to go to for Oz historical sources, these sources aren't great - they are not national or even state newspaper titles - they are only regional newspapers. Having a few regional exhibitions does not make you a noted artist worthy of a wikipedia page. 03:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I live close to the area where this artist was active, I've not heard of them. After running some searches, there is very little on them. Coolabahapple has noted some mentions in small local papers, and a few bios, but nothing in state or national newspapers that indicates major notability. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 05:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - I will be contrarian and will argue that documented dead people from the nineteenth century, and some of her work was in the nineteenth century, are usually notable. In a period when there was less of an excess of writing, being written about proved something. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per Robert McClenon and the sources found by Coolabahapple. Deus et lex ( talk) 12:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Dwitiyo Ripu

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

No notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE. Previous AfD closed as keep before the film was released with the 2 Keep votes going on the basis that there will be more coverage once the film was released. One of the Keep votes was by a sockpuppet. Tagged for notability since 2015, the film was released in 2017 and no significant coverage was found since then. Donaldd23 ( talk) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per wp:nfilm we need at least two independent reviews about the film but it has only one at telegraph. We can no keep this as no references are there since last AfD per Donaldd23. --☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 16:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No RS here. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 05:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, No independent coverage, does not meet WP:NFILM , Alex-h ( talk) 07:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Modified Arts

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

There's sigcov in https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/arts/the-hive-has-a-new-owner-and-shes-got-big-plans-11493843 but like many articles of this nature, it fails to establish broader notability, thus fails WP:NORG which does have expectations of beyond local audience coverage. The previous AfD makes argument how it's important in locality, "have ### Google hits" but does not make a compelling argument that it's notable beyond the Phoenix area community. Much of the coverage is in that Phoenix New Times publication, and several glossary/listing type entries in books. Graywalls ( talk) 20:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 20:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 20:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment We may follow WP:NBUILD which says a building ' may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance'. But it also says, the structure will need in depth coverage besides. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 16:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Mamushir:, so what are you saying? The article indicates no importance of notability of building. However, an article about a historically notable shed shouldn't be in details about the non-notable lawn mower inside even though the article could talk about the history of shed, then merely mention that the home owner currently stores garden tools inside. Graywalls ( talk) 02:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Graywalls: I meant that the building may have historical importance but it must have significant coverage to become notable. I think at wikipedia, we have these time tested rules like wp:sigcov in order to establish notability as mere mentioning historical significance is subjective and can mean different to you and me, but by significant coverage we can not differ much. In this case there is no significant coverage so I incline towards delete. --☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 18:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Some local coverage in Phoenix area but I don't see enough to meet GNG. MB 05:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 22:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Af Petersens

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

Article does not meet GNG. The article is about a noble Swedish family, There might be notable individuals from the family, but the family name does not need a stand alone article. Cooresponding article on Swedish Wikipedia does not establish notability and is sourced to a database site and a genealogy site.   //  Timothy ::  talk  19:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  19:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This is a well-known family (and, as all families in the Swedish nobility, it used to send a representative to the Swedish parliament, which arguably would fulfill WP:POLITICIAN). Besides the treatment in Elgenstierna's Den introducerade svenska adelns ättartavlor (vol. 7), the family and its entailed estate Erstavik are discussed by Björn af Kleen in his Jorden de ärvde (2009). Somebody who did a bit of research could probably write a better article from scratch, so it matters little if this one gets deleted. -- Hegvald ( talk) 08:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete those who served in the national parliament are notable, that does not make the family itself notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There are notable families who have acheived things in history, but there's nothing here to indicate this is one. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 05:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, No sign of notability here. Alex-h ( talk) 07:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW keep, as revised. BD2412 T 00:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply

The Beast Within (novel)

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

Unsourced article that is just a plot summary. Fails WP:GNG. None of the information in the article is mentioned in its two provided sources, save the title and author name dropped in one article about a movie not actually about the book. Found no WP:SIGCOV of the book anywhere, just a very small WP:RUNOFTHEMILL book review article. Author Edward Levy is also currently at AfD. Newshunter12 ( talk) 19:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK either, and I wasn't able to find much about it on my searches. Isabelle 🔔 01:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Changing to keep after the addition of the new sources. Isabelle 🔔 18:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 22:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Deangelo Martin

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

Following BLPN discussion, this article should be deleted as a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. The subject has not yet been convicted of any such crime [2], article admits as much, instead only charged at the moment. The article cannot be salvaged currently, so I don't think anything less than deletion will resolve the issue. I've no issue with recreation if the subject ends up convicted. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Multiple BLPCRIME violations with only claim to notability being not yet proven allegations. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Additional comment: This person is currently standing trial. That only compounds the BLP problem. This article should not exist. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No claims to notability outside of what they are accused of, clear violation of BLPCRIME. -- J04n( talk page) 13:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. The article can be moved back to go through the AfC process once notability can be demonstrated. – bradv 🍁 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hero – Gayab Mode On

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

Planned television series that does not satisfy television notability. The rules that are described in more detail for unreleased films should also apply to future television series. They are normally not notable before being broadcast, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Google search shows that the TV show will be broadcast in a few months. We knew that.

This article has now been created in article space, moved to draft space as not yet notable, and created in article space again. It is still not yet notable. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The draft can be kept, and can be resubmitted when the series is broadcast. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify and creation salt per nom. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 19:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Question for User:Zppix - You said to Draftify. The article is already in both article space and draft space. Does that mean to delete the copy in article space and leave the draft alone? (I would have draftified it, except that it is already in draft space, possibly to try to prevent draftification.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I would say histmerge if needed but delete the article space one for sure. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 12:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify and re-publish when the series goes to air. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 05:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, To the people who are suggesting to draftify, it's already mentioned by the nom that a Draft is already exists. - The9Man ( Talk) 06:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with the existing draft and publish only after the series goes on-air. Sunshine1191 ( talk) 06:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.18.24 ( talk) 21:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can be restored to draft via WP:REFUND by anybody who wants to work on it. Sandstein 10:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Rumbos malditos

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

Non notable film with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search except film database sites and blogs. Seems to fail WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 ( talk) 12:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 12:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 12:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete articles should not last sourced only to IMDb for 13 days, let alone 13 years. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify Notable enough but there is virtually no content or context. Should be expanded first. Batmanthe8th ( talk) 04:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify per above, but relevant WikiProject should be tagged so that they can improve it. ─ The Aafī ( talk) 14:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If it is notable enough to merit keeping or draftifying, sources should be presented that establish that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify, Article has no content so it needs work. Alex-h ( talk) 13:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Curious as to why everyone is saying Draftify when they haven't presented a single source to merit keeping the article. What good is Draftifying the article if there is nothing to support it even if it gets expanded and republished? Presenting the sources now seems a better choice. Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I'm happy with draftifying if someone in this discussion is volunteering to work on the draft and get it back into mainspace. It's not a good idea to draftify articles this old unless they're being actively worked on because they will just be deleted after six months anyway so it's deletion by the back door. I can't find any RIS to support this article and nobody else seems to have either, so unless anyone comes up with anything in this discussion my vote is Delete. Mccapra ( talk) 22:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Ernst-Johann Biron, Prince of Courland

Ernst-Johann Biron, Prince of Courland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another article which consists solely of a genealogical record. I redirected his mother's article (same issue) to her father, Prince Oskar of Prussia, the closest relative with a decent article, but there is no obvious redirect here. I propose deletion, citing WP:NOTINHERITED. Tone 18:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wow, a "prince" whose family hasn't actually ruled for more than 140 years before he was born. No evidence of notability. — Kusma ( t· c) 19:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Courland was merged into Russia in 1795. Hard to see how he is still a Prince of the realm. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 05:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. KidAd talk 05:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Normally I would consider heirs to the Heads of former royal seats as notable but in this case the Duchy of Courland was annexed into the Russian Empire in 1795, 120 years before WWI, which lead to the fall of monarchy across Europe . The article thus completely fails to establish WP:GNG in present times. TheRedDomitor ( talk) 11:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete to countenance this article we will have to pretend the congress of Vienna in 1815 went a different way and restored this individuals family to power. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Per above, does not satisfy notability. Alex-h ( talk) 07:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 17:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2015 Drogheda United F.C. season

2015 Drogheda United F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS

2014 Drogheda United F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 Drogheda United F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 Drogheda United F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Spiderone 17:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Makoto Shinryu

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

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Onel5969 TT me 17:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 17:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete He has no top tier MMA fights. A championship in a lower tier counts nothing towards WP MMA notability. My search found no significant independent coverage, just lots of routine sports reporting and listings in fight cards and databases. Right now it appears to be WP:TOOSOON for him. Papaursa ( talk) 19:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Abhinav Ajith

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

Very recent graduate (completed undergrad degree in 2020), and a single published academic paper. No significant independant coverage that I could see. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham ( talk) 17:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham ( talk) 17:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham ( talk) 17:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Clearly does not meet WP:NPROF, and as far as I could tell, no other notability criteria apply. Rather than WP:TOOSOON, I think it would be more along WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 22:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, far WP:TOOSOON. It is very rare to be notable for academic accomplishments while still a student, and the level of accomplishment needed for this is very high (multiple stories in well-known and non-local media might be good enough; publishing an uncited research paper is definitely insufficient). This looks more like an excuse to publicize a cv than an encyclopedia article. No evidence of passing any notability criterion, particularly not WP:PROF. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. And, totally agree with Kj cheetham, amd David Eppstein. I think, instead of WP:TOOSOON, entities like him should be judged as per WP:NEVER (a suggestive/proposed guideline). - Hatchens ( talk) 07:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not close to being notable.-- Hippeus ( talk) 11:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, could have been speedy A7, not notable. --☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 16:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment It has been tagged for A7 before, though looking more closely it was the page creator who contested that. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 16:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Far from notable, and Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Note enough cites here or published works, but continuing at this pace, I'm sure there will be at some stage. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 05:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Certainly not enough here to pass WP:PROF or WP:BIO. A borderline G11 case. Nsk92 ( talk) 15:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Ravindra Vijay

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

This is a page that I created. I deleted it previously because none of the sources mention the subject in detail. All of the sources simply state his name. TamilMirchi ( talk) 16:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 16:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 16:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - needs more than passing mentions to establish notability Spiderone 19:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Insufficiently notable. Softlavender ( talk) 09:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no significant coverage. Not passing WP:GNG --☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 16:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As noted, mentions, but not features on him establishing notability. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 05:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 21:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bass Computer. Sandstein 10:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Techmaster P.E.B.

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

No evidence of notability per WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC. I am unable to find significant coverage of this individual in multiple reliable sources. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results, most of them listings on music sales websites, and other such databases. ... discospinster talk 16:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 16:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 16:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect, a bit weakly, to Bass Computer, which charted and featured the eponymous single "Bass Computer"—considered an exemplar of Miami bass by at least one scholar: [3]. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 16:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found an Allmusic biography and that's it. I did not found any more reliable sources, just the usual streaming service links, databases, retail sites and casual mentions/name drops. Maybe there are offline sources but I can't track them down as I'm not keen on that. The best solution is a redirect to Bass Computer. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 05:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Ismailia Teaching Oncology Hospital

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

A hospital with this name cannot be found. It might be Suez Canal University Hospital. The one reference is a journal article with no more information about the hospital. -- Talk to G Moore 19:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Discussion page was created without the {{ afd2}} tag and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now. (@ G Moore: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO.) Appears to be a branch of Suez Canal University Hospital--if an article had existed on the hospital, I'd say redirect it to there. As there is no main hospital article, redirecting back to the university seems like a bit of a stretch, as the hospital gets only a sentence (of promotional language) in that article with no mention of sub-branches. -- Finngall talk 15:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Finngall talk 15:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Finngall talk 15:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Finngall talk 21:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Can't find references to this hospital. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 06:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • User:Raafat, can you help us out? Is this مستشفى أورام الإسماعيلية التعليمي ? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Article does not meet GNG or WP:ORG. No sources address the subject directly and in depth. It is affiliated with Suez Canal University but an affiliation doesn't mean its a part of the University so a merge or redirect is not appropriate. Additionally, the material in the article is unsourced. The single reference does not support article content, it discusses a study conducted at the subject hospital.   //  Timothy ::  talk  09:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Amna Malik

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

fails to meet basic GNG as well relevant WP:NACTOR. cited sources are not reliable enough. I don't see she has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Saqib ( talk) 15:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 15:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Appeared in multiple tv shows but fails to have 'significant role' in them. --☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 16:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep she had like strong important supporting roles in dramas such as naqab zan and others naik parveen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne ( talk • contribs)
She have not had significant roles in said TV series. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • delete contrary to the above assertion her roles in TV have not risen to the level of being significant. She is not a notable actress. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • She is a well known actress and before acting she was host and did many morning shows like Dunya News, Tea and Subah Bakhair Pakistan and she was a known face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 14:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season

2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS significantly. This league didn't become fully pro until 2018-19.

2012 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Spiderone 15:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment - I would like to change my vote to keep for 2013 and delete for 2012 and 2011 per GNG Spiderone 19:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Merge any valuable content from 2013 and just delete 2012 and 2011 completely as there is nothing worth keeping Spiderone 13:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all due to GNG/NSEASONS failures. Refbombing the 2013 article with sources about their inevitable relegation doesn't make the season notable either. Dougal18 ( talk) 11:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Spiderone: @ Dougal18:, please could you expand upon which part of this sourced prose you consider relevant to WP:REFBOMB? Do longform articles from national and international media ( [4], [5], [6] etc.) addressing the subject directly and in detail not amount to WP:SIGCOV in this case? Can you also explain why you think their "relegation" was "inevitable"? At the moment it seems to me you are bandying about words you don't understand and that your contribution to this discussion is nonsensical. Bring back Daz Sampson ( talk) 10:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per GNG/NSEASONS failure. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 10:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Is there a higher professional women's league in England or is this yet another attempt to stifle women's professional sports and women in general? It appears to me that the article cites reputable news organizations that directly mention the subject team. The team played in the highest league in England so therefore it meets all the criteria. So both arguments against the article that have been used are null and void simply by applying the logic and intent of the rule itself. Prove me wrong if you can. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 19:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • The deletion is nothing to do with whether it's a men's or women's league; it's because the league is not fully professional. We have recently also deleted numerous article on top division seasons for men's clubs that do not play in fully professional leagues such as this, this, this or this. Number 5 7 22:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Nowhere has it ever been mentioned that playing at the highest level in one's country automatically justifies season-by-season stats articles. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere and I think fully professional leagues is a good line. Spiderone 08:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Spiderone: Where does Wikipedia define precisely what is considered professional or not and why do you get to decide what is considered professional or not? Why is the NFL considered professional? Because it is the top league of male American football in the United States. Why is the WNBA considered professional. Because it is the top female league of basketball in the United States. We have very much defined the top league in any country in any sport as being professional. That is a defining line. My brothers played for a semi-professional club in Italy. Why is it semi-professional? Because it wasn't in the top league. They had the same rules and played the same sport but one league is considered professional while the other is semi-professional. The article stopped reported when they were demoted and gave explanation. They are no longer in the professional league so therefore they are no longer getting the same recognition. It seems cut and dry. @ Number 57: Don't pretend like all women's sports/topics/biographies and such are treated as equals to their male counterparts here on Wikipedia or in life. It just makes you look silly when you try to make that argument. We wouldn't need a "Gender Gap Taskforce" or a "Women in Red Project" if that were the case. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 13:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
That isn't the definition of a "professional league" at all. Just because a league is the top league in a sport in a country doesn't make it professional. If there's a cricket league in Poland or an American football league in Chad or a Gaelic football league in Bolivia, we wouldn't deem it a professional league just because it's the highest league in that sport in that country. A professional league is one where the competitors are full-time professionals in their sport. Many years ago I briefly got to play in the highest-level baseball league in Scotland. We played on a school playing field where we had to mark out our own diamond before each game ourselves and the average paid attendance was zero, and not only were we not paid to play, in fact we had to pay a weekly fee to the club in order to play, so our baseball earnings were negative. By no sane stretch of the imagination was that a "professional league".... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 13:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ ChrisTheDude: By your logic then, every seasonal article on the FA WSL needs to be deleted. It isn't a professional league. Only those being paid full time wages and play full-time, whatever that is, to play their sport are professional. All others are not professional. We have a lot of articles to delete for men and women's sports so get to it. Don't just single out this one and leave the rest. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 13:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Tsistunagiska: as mentioned above, all of these articles on club seasons in their respective countries' men's football leagues have recently been deleted on the grounds that the leagues are not considered professional. There's several others open at the moment and looking like they are heading the same way, too..... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 13:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ ChrisTheDude: ALL articles means ALL articles. Those are cherry picked. Every season article prior to 2018-2019 in the FA WSL needs to be deleted by your logic, including league seasonal articles like this one. If you leave one then it justifies leaving them all. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 13:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
That is not a club season article. We are talking here about club season articles i.e. 20NN-NN Example F.C. season. Articles on the overall league season are a different matter entirely..... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Do you understand how insanely ridiculous that sounds to anyone who looks at this encyclopedia with any degree of logic? You have completely missed the intent and purpose of this encyclopedia if you are going to tell me that a semi-professional league can have an article per season but the individual teams within that semi-professional league can't because they are semi-professional. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 14:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
One could argue that it's no more illogical than saying that a semi-pro club can have an article but the players who play for it can't if they have only ever played semi-pro (eg Ashton United F.C., a club deemed notable but with no current players that are deemed notable)..... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 14:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Now you are breaking off into Wikipedia's notability clause which is too subjective. I can make an argument for or against inclusion and use the same clause to prove both. That's how vague it is. It become a popularity contest akin to a political campaign to see who can get the most votes or left up to whichever person you get to review the article and what mood they are in at that time. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 14:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
If you are going to apply that logic to individuals, in this case athletes, and even groups of individuals, teams, then you should apply it to a league of teams of athletes. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 14:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Here is a great example. Kim Little plays for Arsenal W.F.C.. Truly remarkable woman who deserves this article, in my opinion. But my opinion is not supposed to matter when it comes to Wikipedia clauses for whether an article should be written or not. Arsenal only became a fully professional football club when FA WSL became a fully professional league in 2018-2019 as so aptly pointed out by Spiderone. Here is a player whose only notability is playing a sport as a semi-professional prior to 2018-2019 yet her stats are listed and provided prior to that year. Also, her club has an article for the 2017-2018 season when the league was semi-professional. If the same logic is applied across the board, as it should, then none of this should even be in Wikipedia prior to the 2018-2019 season. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 14:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
If we are going to use WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS to declare that these seasonal club articles need to be deleted because the club is in a sem-professional league that didn't become fully professional until 2018-2019 and, even then, didn't include aforementioned when they did go fully professional, then the following should be deleted on the same principles: this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. I am just highlighting a few clubs/seasons. There are more. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 15:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Many of those articles do look to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. I will consider putting some of them through the AfD process later. I don't want to bundle too many articles together in one AfD as some seasons may be considered under WP:GNG and can be considered disruptive to just put all women's season articles in one AfD. I want to research them individually and see if some of them might at least scrape through GNG first. Spiderone 16:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Thus my point in this whole situation. Warranted notability is subjectively left up to you (used to include all of us). The measuring stick for notability, per WP:GNG, is verifiable independent sources, period. If anyone can refute that then they are reading something else. They all meet that criteria. SO that can't be used to determine anything. The only criteria we are left with is WP:NSEASON. If you are going to use that and view it as meaning only fully professional teams then they are all out, period. FA WSL did not become fully professional until 2018-2019, meaning everything before that is semi-professional. There is nothing to research. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 16:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Also, FA Women's Championship, which replaced FA WSL 2, is not a fully professional league as of the current season so any teams in that league are out if you view NSEASONS to mean only fully professional teams can be included. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 16:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, and even leaving all this aside (!) the most pressing issue is that the 2013 Donny Belles article clearly passes WP:GNG. I suspect most of the above !votes are probably by rote, out of rigid adherence to the sort of dogma which has congealed around the worthless essay WP:FPL (and its delinquent offspring NSEASONS). I'd still like an explanation though, why the multiple independent reliable sources in that article are to be considered "refbombing". I mean, if I pretended all the sources in 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season consituted "refbombing" and tried to get it deleted on that basis I'd be laughed out of town, and rightly so. But what is the difference here? How and why can an article on a subject with that breadth and depth of coverage possibly be considered non-notable? Bring back Daz Sampson ( talk) 16:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Bring back Daz Sampson: I completely agree with your assessment. I notice that the same group runs around deleting these articles because of their own biased perspectives with no regard for the way these guidelines should be objective. No mention of "fully" professional anywhere in WP:NSEASONS. WP:GNG is clear when it says "reliable independent sources" which these articles have and I suspect all the articles dubiously deleted by this cabal had as well. WP:GNG supersedes every other guideline and it even states that in WP:NSEASON. Tsistunagiska ( talk) 17:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 2013, Delete or Merge the others GNG trumps all the sports SNGs, so the fiddly issues they raise are beside the point. Rolling them into a single article might be the smart move. Johnbod ( talk) 17:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

DJ V.I.P.

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

This musician has worked with several well-known people but notability is NOTINHERITED and there's nothing to demonstrate that he passes any of the criteria listed at MUSICBIO. The references are all interviews with him, so cannot be described as independent: I've searched for him under the names "DJ V.I.P.", "djvip510" and "Anthony Orozco", but I can't find any significant coverage of him beyond Facebook, Instagram and Twitter YouTube etc. plus a few other interviews. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 14:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Andy Frain

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

Poorly-cited promotional article that likely fails WP:GNG. Edwardx ( talk) 13:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Article is promotional in nature and cites primary references. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 06:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: as noted, no independent RS here. 05:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not enough sourcing. Lausapwow ( talk) 04:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mayor of Mansfield. T. Canens ( talk) 02:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Andy Abrahams

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

BLP article about the mayor of a town in UK. I originally redirected this to Mayor of Mansfield, but this was objected to and I self reverted.

I do not believe the article meets GNG, BASIC or NPOL. The article has two sources (each listed twice), one is an election results page from the city, so it is not an IS and does not provide SIGCOV that address the subject directly or in-depth. The other source is a local news interview with the individual about his candidacy for mayor; other than the subjects interview question answers about local issues, it contains very limited information about the subject, nothing that would be considered SIGCOV addressing the subject directly or in-depth. BEFORE showed a sparse amount of the same type of coverage.

Since this is a BLP and a public figure, it's important that we strictly follow sourcing and notability requirements. Subject appears to be a good average normal person, who was elected to a local position.

I originally thought this was an appropriate AfD, but decided to be conservative and did a redirect instead, even though I think the article title is a common name and unlikely search term. I believe Delete is the best result, but if a redirect is a possible alternative.   //  Timothy ::  talk  13:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  13:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  13:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Whilst the 2 sources don't give notability by themselves, there are plenty of sources available [7] that could be added to enable the article to meet WP:POLITICIAN (Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage}. The Mayor of Mansfield is a directly elected position, unlike most British mayors who are unelected and chosen by the local council ruling party, so is a more significant position than the majority of other British mayors. -- John B123 ( talk) 14:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mayor of Mansfield as TB did originally. All the coverage I'm seeing is in a small local paper in Mansfield, which (although WP:AUD does not apply to NPOL) seems inadequate to demonstrate notability. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 15:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mayor of Mansfield. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. KidAd talk 20:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and/or redirect per nom. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist — the key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not just to verify his technical victory in the election and a bit of biographical trivia about his family, but to write a substantive article about his political significance: specific city-building projects he spearheaded, specific and concrete effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. So no, simply being able to source his existence to a primary source table of election results and a single article in a community hyperlocal about his initial selection as his party's candidate is not enough to make a notable mayor — local coverage isn't entirely verboten when it comes to helping to establish the notability of a mayor, but one hit isn't enough all by itself. Regardless of whether your sources for a mayor are localized or nationalized, there still have to be a lot more of them than this. Bearcat ( talk) 23:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I objected to one editor making a unilateral decision to single-out one bio stub when there is a list of similar at Directly elected mayors in England and Wales#Mayoralties administering a single local authority area. I made this clear at Talk prior to this deletion review, and it was ignored. The establishing editor also made it clear in the initial edit summary: "Creation of page for third directly elected Mayor of Mansfield. As it is the only DE Mayor with no wiki page". Again, I clarified this latter aspect at Talk as inclusive of other areas, not simply relating to the previous two incumbents.

    On the basis of delete/redirect, the following also need to be listed:

    As the nom seems adept with the TW utility, I trust this will now eventuate to demonstrate Wiki-consistency?

    Local politicians will - generally - attract only local press coverage, unless there's additional factors - notoriety, ferinstance. As I stated at Talk (and is covered elsewhere), Abrahams was a last-minute candidate, hence no prior coverage. It's pointless now bothering to expand the article or even format the refs.-- Rocknrollmancer ( talk) 01:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect per Bearcat's NPOL argument, which he puts more eloquently than I ever could. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: As indicated in the nomination, I believe a redirect is an acceptable resolution.   //  Timothy ::  talk  23:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Marc Marot

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

Self-published promotional article. Not seeing how this passes WP:GNG. Edwardx ( talk) 13:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article in the independent seems like sigcov, but it's an interview. The rest barely mentions Marot. All we have is Marot talking about himself. The claim the he's a visual artist is absurd. He worked a bit to promote Scarlett Raven, whose article also deserves a good look. There was some hype around their use of the failed Blippar app, but that didn't yield significant coverage either. Vexations ( talk) 14:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Notability is not inherited from the artists that he represents. The only source that seems reliable sigcov is the interview, but as Vexations mentions, is a primary source and doesn't contribute to his notability. Netherzone ( talk) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Mohammadali Esteki

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU as no professional or international appearances. No sources in the article or that I could find that suggests the player qualifies for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 13:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 13:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 13:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 13:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 13:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
delete per nomination. Skeene88 ( talk) 13:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Rogue. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Alternative versions of Rogue

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

Unnecessary article split for the purpose of dumping unnecessary plot information instead of summarizing it per WP:WAF. This article does not meet the standards of WP:GNG. TTN ( talk) 12:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 12:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 12:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 12:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2009–10 Gateshead F.C. season

2009–10 Gateshead F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 11:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 11:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG as well as NSEASONS; nothing remarkable about the season that would suggest it warrants an article of its own Spiderone 14:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NSEASON failure. Number 5 7 10:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Govvy ( talk) 18:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NSEASON failure.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 12:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2012–13 Gateshead F.C. season

2012–13 Gateshead F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 11:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 ( talk) 11:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG as well as NSEASONS; nothing remarkable about the season that would suggest it warrants an article of its own Spiderone 14:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NSEASON failure. Number 5 7 10:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Rod Stoner

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

Non-notable; WP:SINGLEEVENT Jennifer Government 11:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist ( talk) 12:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Mr Stoner's complaints would likely be worth including in an article on the company, but not as a bio article of him. Nick-D ( talk) 04:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Don't think there's enough to pass WP:GNG. Agree with Nick-D that his complaints would likely merit inclusion in an article on the company, but insufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Advance New Zealand#Direct Democracy New Zealand. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Direct Democracy New Zealand

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

Fails notability - there is no significant coverage from any independent sources. Any material from this article can be included in the Advance Party article. HenryCrun15 ( talk) 09:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 ( talk) 09:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 ( talk) 09:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 ( talk) 09:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Support. Not registered or running candidates, so not notable. -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 09:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non registered party, didn't actually contest the election. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 16:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect They are written up on the Advance New Zealand page as becoming a component party with them. They aren't registered themselves or running any candidates. NZFC (talk) (cont) 02:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fringe political party with little or no in-depth coverage of them as a political party. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pan African Film Festival. The single delete keep voter indicates that they would be content with a redirect, as does the nom. GirthSummit (blether) 16:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC) amended GirthSummit (blether) 16:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Ayuko Babu

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

There is no meat here. Both references are interviews with the gentleman. I have sought references, but can find nothing so far that is not similar reference material. This is a bleakly short stub and fails to assert and verify notability. Fails WP:GNG. Perhaps it might be merged with Pan African Film Festival as a logical outcome of this discussion assuming the consensus is not an outright deletion? As nominator I am content with either outcome, or, of course, that the article is sufficiently improved to be retained in its putative enhanced state. Fiddle Faddle 09:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 20:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I believe information available is enough for a keep. I don't mind a redirect to PAFF too. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 15:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to European Aviation Safety Agency. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 11:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Patrick Ky

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

Does not pass WP:NBIO- notability is not inherited from the CEO position. 1292simon ( talk) 02:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to a to-be-created "Leadership" section in European Aviation Safety Agency. Doesn't appear notable independently of the agency, but it could be some nice context in the article on the agency. (Fwiw, he has gotten some decent press in his role as CEO: e.g., [8]). AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 04:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 04:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 04:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 04:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to NowThis News. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

TestTube

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete:. I see that notability for WP:NWEB tells that The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.. This website content has folded and is not coming up in any searches showing this effect or result. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to NowThis News: Barely found anything about the app. Search results return activities of a cosmetic line with the same name. ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 07:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Aga Khan Health Services. Tone 09:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Aga Khan Maternal and Child Care Centre

Aga Khan Maternal and Child Care Centre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about an extremely small hospital that doesn't seem to be notable since the article doesn't cite any references and I couldn't find any that would pass WP:GNG when I looked. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 09:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 11:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 11:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Aga Khan Health Services. Since the person that created the article did not bother to add any references to begin with, it does not have to be a stand-alone and separate article. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 17:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Mary Ann Newman

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

I'm not convinced this lady is notable. — S Marshall  T/ C 01:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — S Marshall  T/ C 01:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - hako9 ( talk) 06:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Davidpar, in my opinion the sources you provide indicate trivial coverage, [13] being the notable exception. I think being awarded Creu de Sant Jordi is enough to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. Sam-2727 ( talk) 22:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I really don't. It's a local Catalan award that's given prolifically (at least a couple of dozen every year). I agree with you that all the other sources are trivial.— S Marshall  T/ C 23:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    S Marshall, now take this with a grain of salt since I know next to nothing about Catalonia, but given the sort of autonomous status that Catalonia has, I would consider a high civil honor to be indicatory of notability. As a not-so-perfect parallel (from a field I know more about), we consider American physical society fellows to be notable even though 180+ of these are awarded every year. Sam-2727 ( talk) 04:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham ( talk) 09:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 09:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. I'm not entirely sure how to evaluate a translator, but her translations have been reviewed in scholarly journals, e.g. Translation Review. pburka ( talk) 15:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • To clarify, since apparently some editors didn't understand my position, she's notable because she won an important award and her work as a translator has been the subject of scholarly criticism. pburka ( talk) 20:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 08:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This AfD was previously closed, and then reopened; see this discussion if you'd like to understand the reasons.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: Google Scholar shows a not insignificant number of translations by this person. Resources other than those on the article indicate a person of some stature and standing in the translation works, and contributions to culture and history. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Number of translation works is not relevant — what is needed is something written about the subject, in whatever capacity that confirms their notability. As for the notion that the subject merits a page by virtue of being a recipient of this particular award, I think that is too low of a bar. As far as I'm concerned, the subject's notable significance has not been established by the article at this time. El_C 20:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Terry Kline

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

Vice president of a non-notable hotel company? With not a single reference providing substantial coverage about him from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Ref 1 is about the company . Ref 2 has a photo of him but seems to be mainly about hte president of the company; 3 & 4 each mention his name once. Ref 5, dealing with the company progress in the field of acquisitions in which the article claims him to be a leader, does not even mention his name . Written by a contributor who has edited nothing else--except the now deleted page on the president of the company. .

I consider this A7 territory, but another admin disagreed. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: An article on a man with a job at a firm on which there is a declined AfC draft (by the same contributor, whose editing concerns the firm and its executives, though with no declared connection). The references provided are routine in-role mentions and my searches are not finding better: no evidence of attained notability. AllyD ( talk) 07:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non notable, PR -- Devokewater (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Priyanjali singh ( talk) 12:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and AllyD. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 15:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I declined the A7, because I think there is a reasonable chance, say 1 in 5, that a person with this kind of position will have significant coverage and be notable. However, on further searches plus the comments of those above who have done their searches, this seems to be one of the other four. Delete. (Unless someone finds sources better than any presented so far.) DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 18:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - insufficient coverage for inclusion. -- IWI ( talk) 22:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to HPI Ltd. Tone 09:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

HPI Check

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

Greetings, fine people of AfD. The question I would like you to consider is whether the article for this product is separately notable to the company ( HPI Ltd), or should it be merged? 1292simon ( talk) 06:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

United Democratic Party (UK)

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. This party is not notable as per ORG and GNG and the article relies on a single source. Beyond standing for a few elections (the bare minimum expected of a political party) there is no clear proof of notability. doktorb words deeds 05:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb words deeds 05:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb words deeds 05:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I was going to suggest a redirect, but then I was unable to find anything else sourcing wise outside what is already in the article and I'm not a fan of redirecting badly source information. So, I'm going with delete. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 07:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination: a minor party with no evidence of notability or significant coverage. I was going to suggest redirecting to October 1974 United Kingdom general election, but this could lead to confusion given that an unrelated (according to the article) party with the same name also fielded a candidate at the 1983 Bermondsey by-election. ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 08:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Michael Murray (attorney)

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

Non-notable lawyer fails WP:GNG. He has not been nominated for a role that would confer notability, so he only appears to be a run-of-the- mill government attorney. KidAd talk 04:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: I sense this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and that this fellow needs more time to merit an article. For lawyers, consider: Has he argued two or more cases before the highest court of appeal in their country of origin? Does not appear to be so. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 11:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete law clerks to supreme court justices often go on to become notable, but they are not default notable just for holding this postion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Academy Bus Lines fleet

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

An excessive collection of unimportant data - not a notable topic. Only reference is to some other Wiki. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per WP:IINFO. Maybe merge into the parent article, but the table needs to be a lot terser. Commuter section is a possible copyvio of the other wiki. Jumpytoo Talk 03:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Table too large to be in the main article, yet there should be a mention of the fleet. The table is from CPTDB wiki, with a few changes. I have done this many times, so it should be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTATransitFan ( talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: MTATransitFan ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
  • Delete - Pretty trivial information, many of the buses before around 1998 aren't quite verified anyway. Mtattrain ( talk) 17:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • They are very much verified now! I got rid of the buses that haven't been verified! Best, MTATransitFan Chat! 17:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Kiwi Party (2019)

Kiwi Party (2019) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as a political party: not registered, not running candidates. Has had some media coverage of their court cases over NZ gun law, but not enough to be notable IMHO. IdiotSavant ( talk) 02:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I haven't heard about this party before. They seem pretty obscure and haven't attracted the media coverage that the New Zealand Public Party and the New Conservatives have. I am inclined to support deletion unless someone can find more sources to establish its notability. Andykatib 02:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems to be covered enough by New Zealand Herald, also in an academic paper. Also the second legal case looks like it clarifies NZ law. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC). reply
  • Keep Between the New Zealand Herald coverage and the Psychiatry, Psychology and Law journal article, I think that this organization has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which is the test for notability of an organisation. HenryCrun15 ( talk) 22:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I should add though that I can't actually access the journal article, so I'm speculating that it's significant coverage. I'd also be happy if the contents of this article were merged into Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Act 2019. HenryCrun15 ( talk) 01:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and merge into Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Act 2019. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law only mentions them in one paragraph so it fails significant coverage. All the news and journal mentions of this "party" are only in relation to that particular legislation. -- haminoon ( talk) 04:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The article does not meet notability. Sources which meet RS are just mentions, nothing that is WP:IS SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth.   //  Timothy ::  talk  07:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete They party hasn't had any significant ongoing coverage and is unlikely to as they aren't registered and they aren't running any candidates in the 2020 election. Any source that mentions them is with regard to them forming due to the one topic, the party isn't notable in itself. NZFC (talk) (cont) 02:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fringe political party with little or no in-depth coverage of them as a political party. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Libertarian Party NZ

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

Not notable after all. Page created as party had indicated it would be running candidates in the 2020 NZ general election. Candidate lists released today ( here show they are not running in any of the indicated electorates, or in any others. Unregistered, have not run in past elections, so not automatically notable, and have not otherwise attracted sufficient media attention to be notable for any other reason. -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 02:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete I was unable to find any independent sources discussing this subject. HenryCrun15 ( talk) 07:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete the subject lacks notability likely to being a case of WP:TOSOON. I'm sure it will get more coverage and might worthy of an article after some the parties candidates actually run for office. At this point, there's nothing worth having an article about. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 07:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete. Agree with both comments above. -- Bduke ( talk) 01:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete Had a search, but not much RS for this - so far hasn't contested an election. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 16:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete I assumed it was connected to the defunct Libertarianz party, but couldn't find anything. Pelirojopajaro ( talk) 08:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete The second paragraph of the article is incorrect. The party has no candidates in the 2020 election. Moriori ( talk) 22:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete and suggest closing due to WP:SNOWBALL. NZFC (talk) (cont) 02:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fringe political party with little or no in-depth coverage of them as a political party. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 09:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Frank de Jong

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

Though the article is lengthy the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. The sources are mostly links to Green Party pages or official returns from Elections Canada or Elections Ontario. Interestingly, de Jong is no longer leader of the Yukon Green Party yet there don't seem to be any media articles stating this. Sowny ( talk) 02:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Frank de Jong is the former leader of the Green Party of Ontario which holds a seat in the Ontario Legislature. He is also the former or current leader of the Yukon Green Party, the fourth largest party in Yukon based on the last election there. The nominator has obviously made no attempts to review or locate any WP:RS concerning de Jong. If they had, they would have easily found extensive coverage including:
  1. CBC News: [14], [15], [16], [17]
  2. Toronto Star: [18]
  3. CTV News: [19]
  4. Yukon News: [20], [21]
  5. Whitehorse Star: [22]
  6. Klondike Sun: [23]
  7. Soo Today, Village Media: [24], [25]
  8. The Chronicle-Journal: [26]
  9. CKRW-FM: [27]
This article should be kept though, like many, it could use some improvement including some clarity about de Jong's current status with the Yukon Greens. The party website still lists him as the leader (though under a heading that says 2016 election): [28]. Elections Yukon says the leadership is vacant without any clarification: [29].-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 04:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The fact that the Green Party won a seat under someone else later on doesn't make de Jong retroactively notable. Sowny ( talk) 04:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Well, that is like your opinion man. It is clear the media take de Jong and the Yukon Greens seriously. During the last election, he attended leaders debates (also see [30] and [31]).-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 09:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
So did Mackenzie Thomason yet you are AFDing that article. Sowny ( talk) 14:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 04:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 04:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Deletion alerts! at WikiProject Green Politics.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 04:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete I looked over the sources provided by Darryl Kerrigan and all of them except for one seem to be extremely brief mentions and about other things. Except for one article that was about a failed campaign. Which I don't think is enough to pass the general notability guidelines or the one for politicians. Unfortunately, being the leader of a political party isn't enough either. That said, I don't have anything against the article being recreated if he does something notable enough for Wikipedia's standards in the future. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 07:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
That really isn't an accurate summary of the sources. The first CBC source, titled "Green Party's Frank de Jong asks Yukoners to follow their green conscience" is entirely focused on de Jong. The CTV and Toronto Star are about him stepping down as Ontario leader and his legacy, but both of the Yukon News articles are profiles (specifically about him). The Klondike Sun one is reporting following a detailed interview with him. The others generally cover campaigns he ran, and the policies he was advancing as Green Leader. I don't think it is fair to describe that all as "brief mentions... about other things".-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 09:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
To be fair I did say there was an article about his failed campaign. It is an interview though and interviews don't usually work toward notability since they are primary sources. Which goes for the other interview also. Those aside, articles that "generally cover campaigns he ran, and the policies he was advancing" don't work for notability either. Since there is no specific notability guidelines for campaign aids or policy "advancers" (whatever that means). AfDs aren't just about "sources." Maybe read through WP:AADD. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 09:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
He was the leader of the Yukon Green Party. So its pretty expected that he'd be covered by a Yukon news outlet. A local politician getting local coverage doesn't make them notable. Whereas, the second source is clearly an interview. Adamant1 ( talk) 21:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- He's been the leader of two provincial/territorial green political parties and has extensive coverage in the media. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The sources show he squeaks past the GNG / BASIC criteria -' '"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"   //  Timothy ::  talk  06:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Rucker, Bates County, Missouri

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

State Historical Society calls it a coal switch; small-scale topos never show more than one building along the Missouri-Pacific. Not a community, not notable. Hog Farm Bacon 00:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Negligent creation is appararently false: not a community, nor a notable feature for the township or county article. No hits on newspapers.com. Reywas92 Talk 03:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge with township in which the former coal switch is located. 72.49.7.25 ( talk) 03:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

    • And why do we need to merge this? There are thousands of old railroad switches in the US. I see no need to document them all. Township articles shouldn't be a repository for every railroad switch, highway bridge, or fence post that ever existed there. Hog Farm Bacon 03:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Cornland, Missouri

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

While the State Historical Society isn't clear what Cornland is, it's not on the pre-GNIS small-scale topos, with the exception of the 1937 one for New Home, Missouri, which labels Cornland as an isolated country school. The GNIS entry is sourced to a map of country schools. The only useful Google books hit I could find with this is a vague 1935 government report that stated "there is no longer a store at Cornland." All other hits are passing mentions or apparently for Cornland, Illinois. Whatever this was, it doesn't appear to be a notable community. Hog Farm Bacon 00:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • delete GNIS's compilers never cease, it appears, to come up with new questionable sources of input, in this case, "Missouri Rural School Maps (rural schools named and located on county highway maps of the Missouri Department of Highways)". The problem in this case is that someone appears to have looked at the topo in the first phase, saw a single building labelled "Cornland School", and abjured entry of it. But I have to think (not being able to see the map in question readily) that a map of schools neglected to put the word "School" next to "Cornland" (it being, after all, a map of schools), and thus someone else saw just the word "Cornland" and stuck it in GNIS as a "pop. place". This is of course supposition, but I have to maintain that a map of school buildings isn't a map of village/towns/"communities" unless we can see otherwise. Mangoe ( talk) 19:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep community was large enough to accommodate a store and school. An editor who cares, instead of deleting, might add to the stub: "little remains of the original town site". All jokes aside, the fate of a valid stub shouldn't ride on the nominator's ability to google correctly. 72.49.7.25 ( talk) 03:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • So you don't think I care? Or that I can't Google? I put more effort into this nomination than it took to write this article, probably. Hog Farm Bacon 03:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Aaron, Missouri

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

State historical society calls it "Aaron Post Office." Does not appear on the 1894 topo, despite supposedly being founded in 1892. Appears on the 1961 topo, but only one building is shown at the site. All signs point to a post office, not a community; yet another GNIS error. Hog Farm Bacon 00:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • delete Plainly just a post office. Mangoe ( talk) 19:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; or else merge to township. 72.49.7.25 ( talk) 03:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
    • And can you provide a reason for why either of those actions are appropriate? Post offices don't get automatic notability from anything ... Hog Farm Bacon 14:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Julia Green Elementary School

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

Article does not pass GNG or NORG. BEFORE in Google and Newspapers.com showed only sparse routine run of the mill local coverage, nothing that establishes notability. Sources in the article are not WP:IS. This is a normal average elementary school.   //  Timothy ::  talk  00:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  00:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  00:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This elementary school is routine in every way. It has no historical or architectural significance. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete totally not notable run of the mill school. Which isn't suppressing. It would probably be pretty hard for an elementary school to be notable for anything. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 06:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. I agree that this does not appear to be a notable school. The norm for non-notable lower level schools is to redirect to the local school board/district, or to the locale if there is no district article Meters ( talk) 08:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC). reply
  • Delete Routine coverage. Non-notable school. Priyanjali singh ( talk) 12:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - to school district per Meters as an ATD. John from Idegon ( talk) 16:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect/merge to Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, as elementary and middle schools are handled, except in those with clear claim to notability. Jacona ( talk) 00:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete one of 73 elementary schools currently in the Nashville. No reason to have articles on all of them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

YunoHost

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

WP:ADVERT. Entirely based off of primary sources of extremely poor quality such as forums. I'm also unable to pin down WP:SIRS expected to establish WP:NPRODUCT Graywalls ( talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 00:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fully promotional article. Priyanjali singh ( talk) 12:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, all the sources are very unreliable and subject is just non-notable. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 10:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bowling for Soup#DirecTV, Download Festival 2007, and live album (2007–2008). Eddie891 Talk Work 13:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Bowling for Soup: Live and Very Attractive

Bowling for Soup: Live and Very Attractive (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable live album. AllMusic page is just a track listing and some user-generated reviews; just about everything else I'm finding appears to be community blogs and user-generated databases. Hog Farm Bacon 00:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 00:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_September_19&oldid=980887170"