Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 10

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 9 July 11 July >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Springs, Lassen County, California

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

This is a curious case, because it does look like a mistake, but one that can actually be seen. When you go to GMaps, there is a farm at the location specified by GNIS. But going back in the topos at Historic Aerials reveals an interesting editorial mark. I do not know where the copies they have scanned came from, but up until the 1990 version they show, there's a building, a benchmark, and the road, and that's it. But the 1990 copy has "Hot Springs" handwritten across the road from the house, and the benchmark altitude (4181 ft) handwritten as well under that. The next copy in 1996 has the label and the height in a bold, sans serif font; after that, the label moves across the road to where the building was indicated and changes to the town name font, and finally it disappears altogether in the 2018 copy. Going further afield, the maps show an area labelled "Kellog Hot Springs" and a "Hot Springs Slough" running north from there. Meanwhile, I find the following in Fairfield's history of the county (p. 101): "This year a man named Wasson settled in Long valley at what is sometimes called the Upper Hot Springs, or the Hot Springs ranch." A book of California hot springs doesn't list anything I can identify with any of this. The upshot seems to be that there is no such community and never was. Mangoe (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for now - An unincorporated place doesn't have to have people to exist. For example, in NC, each country is subdivided into 6 or 8 "Townships", basically unincorporated "towns". This was done for fire and police enforcement. Google maps shows "Hot Springs, Lassen County, California", which means a little but not much. btw, they don't need a hot spring to be called Hot Springs. It's just a name. I want to look a little more, but if it is a legally defined area according to the laws of California, it would automatically be included as a geographical location. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found that it is shown as a township here [1] if you zoom in right, way up in the NW corner of the map, north of Leonard. It's just all farm land. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell (because the thing isn't working all that well for me) that's a survey township; the GNIS location appears to be in Township 38N 8E, Section 10. These townships are utterly lacking in notability, for the most part; they are just coordinates. In any case nothing shows that this 6 mile by 6 mile square is identical to this supposed community. My larger comment on your first response is that you give me the impression of fishing for a reason to keep an unexpandable and problematic stub rather than being able to show that it is a notable and actual community— which really means, given how GNIS defines "populated place", that it's a town or village or at least a neighborhood. Look, if you can find something that even says what this "Hot Springs" at this location was, it would help a lot. My problem is that the only thing I can find is the passage from Fairfield, and it suggests that it is indeed what the aerials and topos show: a single ranch or farm. Go ahead and find something else talking about the place, under that name, which elucidates things further. Mangoe (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are geographical designations. They have legal standing in the real world, and we've always kept accepted geographical places, be they mountains, counties, townships or whatever that a government would designate an official "place". An example is one I started, Browns Summit, North Carolina. As for policy, Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), which in part says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.". By virtue of being a township, it is legally recognized. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you are not seriously suggesting replacing this article with a different one on the survey township (which would have a different name), nor starting a series of thousands of articles on all the survey townships—or for that matter, thirty-six times as many section articles. "Hot Springs" is not a township: the spot that GNIS assigns to the name Hot Springs lies in a particular section within a particular section township, but they are not identical, and you have produced nothing to the contrary. We have been over this before: GNIS was only ever intended to specify which name is used for a feature, and even that has no legal standing: it only dictates government information processing. Mistakes in classification of features are common enough to where I and most other people dealing with it here on WP do not consider it reliable in that wise, because to be reliable, it has to be correct, and we have too many cases where it obviously is not. And GNIS does not assign names to survey townships, because they already are designated differently, using a numeric grid system.
Your NC example is completely irrelevant, as there is ample current testimony to its existence as a town, seeing as how, for starters, it has its own zip code and a middle school. An article on a place whose town-ness is easily demonstrated is no argument at all for an article on a place where that demonstration is lacking. I would also remind you that WP:GEOLAND is not policy, and that its interpretation as a guideline is frequently re-argued because of the phrase "official recognition", which isn't as unambiguous as you seem to think. Finally, there is the problem that "populated place", as GNIS defines it, is not a synonym for "community". We have found many cases where the "populated place" is a single, isolated building and was never anything but. Mangoe (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a guideline. And as I stated, we generally allow articles on govt. designated areas, irrespective of population or incorporation status. Being snarky doesn't change that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do get tired of having to point out that mention in GNIS does not constitute government designation. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete California does not have townships as governmental subdivisions like other states. There is zero evidence this has "legal standing in the real world" or is otherwise a notable place: survey townships are not automatically notable. We can see on the 1931 topo there were two instances of "Hot Spring" in this location, and the 1967 map has those Mangoe mentions, but no evidence of a community. Reywas92Talk 18:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like a hot spring that was labeled as such on a topo and then miscategorized as "populated place" by GNIS. "Unincorporated community" is a WP:OR label applied by an editor, not supported by any source. Appearing on Google Maps is meaningless because they scrape location data from Wikipedia and GNIS; see WP:GNIS for more on this. The only sources we have are maps and tables which are specifically excluded from establishing notability per WP:NGEO. Despite the speculation, we have zero reliable sourcing for the claim that this was a community, township or any other sort of officially-recognized place, much less a notable one. –dlthewave ☎ 20:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to recognised populated places, if this isn't one of those then it has to pass the WP:GNG, and it clearly doesn't because we're struggling to even show it exists. This isn't a recognised subdivision of California, if it was then you wouldn't need to zoom in on random maps selling land to prove it. There are places in Lassen County called Hot Springs (e.g. a peak in the Amedee Mountains called Hot Spring Peak, which once had a town), but none of them seem to be anywhere near this place, and there's blatantly no community there now. Hut 8.5 20:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Sage

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO after a cursory check of Google News and Books Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WTOP-TV (SUNY Oswego)

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

Non-broadcast channel seen only on cable systems in the immediate area and on campus. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BCAST. Deprodded because of what I believe to be a misunderstanding. Raymie (t • c) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kvng: To clarify one of the reasons mentioned for deprodding, the "channel 96" listed on the article is a cable channel, not a broadcast one (there is no broadcast channel 96). The cable channel is only seen in one county. Raymie (t • c) 22:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your original reason was Uncited article on a college student TV station (not broadcast, campus cable-only). It does go beyond the campus. Uncited and student-run are not valid reasons to delete. I have looked more closely and I agree that this does not appear to meet WP:BCAST. What evidence have you found that it does not meet WP:GNG? ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not seeing this sooner, Kvng. Most of the coverage that I do see is routine or about awards received. [3][4] Raymie (t • c) 15:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matchify

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

Promotional article about a non-notable app. No indication of any significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. M4DU7 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Loyauté

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

This article has a lot of citations, most of them in French, so it is little difficult to see, but the amount of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is insufficient to sustain an article. Another problem is the amount of original research. There are quite a few citations that don't mention the subject, for example in the section about the sweets and Trump, where sources that discuss Trump's tweets about skittles are well documented, but no mention of the subject is made, which are then combined with other sources to come to a conclusion that is not supported by the sources. Anoher example is the claim that the subject was involved in the purchase of Native American Hopi and Pueblo masks, which is well-documented as a purchase made by the Annenberg foundation and 1 item by the lawyer representing the Hopi, Pierre Servan-Schreiber, as detailed in [this newspaper article]. Vexations (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Yikes! Mega-name dropping! Grew up in the same 'hood as Duchamp! Met Paul McCartney and Claude Levi Strauss! Offered the son of Cheetos-tinted president one of his edible sculptures via Tweet, then writes a invitation for T-Junior + family to visit his show! Last but not least a Hopi mask "called to him"! I actually laughed out loud when reading the article, but seriously, with so much failed verification, it is hard to say what may be credible and what is not. This will take a bit of unravelling. Netherzone (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's also been listed for deletion on the French wiki, with pretty much the same reasoning given here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will say I am Weak delete on this. The article is atrociously promotional and full of BS at the moment. The sources I saw were a Guardian review, a Gulf News review (same author as Guardian), something minor in Bloomberg, a profile in L’officiel (a French Fashion magazine apparently published since 1921), and this Book on Pierre Cardin, published by Flammarion,` the latter of which is not a source but gives some indication of importance. The French Wikipedia article just seems to be tagged for notability, with the same problem we have here: "Parmi les 60 (!) références, quelles sont les deux sources secondaires centrées qui attestent sa notoriété ? Translation: "60 sources... where are the two independent ones we actually need to prove notability?"ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ThatMontrealIP, I think there are two issues here; a) is the subject notable? (i.e. is there sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article) and b) is there anything in this article than can be kept? My answer to a) is probably, my answer to b) is unequivocally no. A keep would be acceptable if conditional upon a complete rewrite. Even the text that is currently cited to reliable sources cannot be retained because there is so much WP:SYNTH. Would such an outcome work for you? Vexations (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vexations: I actually changed my comment many times it within a few minutes of posting it, going from weak keep to neutral to weak delete. It is possible therefore that you were replying to an earlier version of my comment. I Found some sourcing but it is not enough. Still going with weak delete. The article, if kept would need a complete rewrite, and I don't think there is enough sourcing to justify that new article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm going to have to say delete on this. After going through a copy of the article and removing all the content referenced to primary sources, unverifiable content and sources that did not mention the artist, all that was left were a few trivial items that were more like press releases or listings, and one usable source (in STEIÐZ). I could not unpack the JSTOR item because it seems my library card has expired? The Bloomberg item is 2 sentences long. The L'officiel piece is an interview, and therefore a primary source. He did write the book mentioned above on Pierre Cardin, but it's just a listing of the book not a review of it. Not sure if that is enough to pass muster. I'm not one to invoke WP:TNT, but the best approach may be to simply start over if it turns out that he is notable. If good sourcing is found I could change my mind, but for now deletion seems appropriate. Netherzone (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The GulfNews item linked above by ThatMontrealIP looks like an acceptable RS. I missed that earlier. Netherzone (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nom is a patient editor and has done work here. I agree with them that there might be a valid notable mouse crawling around under this nightmare haystack of peacock language, OR, bad sources, unprovable assertions, and relentless self-regard, but any keep would mean a complete re-write. There's nothing here worth saving. --Lockley (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 League of Legends#Setting and lore. There's consensus that this fictional world is not notable. The edits to the article mentioned at the end do not change this, as far as I can tell: they appear to be mostly about various aspects of the video games at issue, and not so much about the fictional world that is supposed to be the topic of the article. Such content can still be added to existing articles, consensus permitting. Sandstein 14:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Runeterra

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

Poor refs. Fails WP:GNG. Full of fancruft. Fails WP:NVG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect though not apposed to a Delete and Redirect. "Runeterra" is a clear search term for the game and should redirect there, but I cant see any of this content applying there at all as its all in-universe and sourced to game-related material. Maybe a brief statement of the realms, but not anywhere to this level. I don't see much material that can be rescued so a delete is possible. --Masem (t) 21:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Legends of Runeterra as a valid alternative to deletion. Clearly not an independently notable fictional setting, but as Masem pointed out, surely a valid search term for the main game, which includes this word in the title. Red Phoenix talk 22:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Riot reveals another League of Legends game – a tabletop named Tellstones". PCGamesN.
  2. ^ Gilliam, Ryan (April 13, 2018). "The history of the League of Legends". The Rift Herald.
  3. ^ Lee, Julia (June 11, 2020). "You can now officially play Dungeons & Dragons in the League of Legends universe". Polygon.
  4. ^ "A League Of Legends World Map Is In The Works, But Will Take Time". GAMING.
  5. ^ Matthews, Emma (February 14, 2020). "Take a tour of Legends of Runeterra's far-flung regions".
@Red Phoenix: The article is no longer solely about Runeterra, it's been expanded to include the entirety of the League of Legends universe, supplemented by content that has already been written and included in the main article. Comparing this to the Death Star is an unrealistic standard and the article only needs to meet WP:GNG for inclusion, but for that matter it definitely has it's own cultural impact.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article that complies with not being solely WP:INUNIVERSE is an unrealistic standard? I get that you're trying really hard here, but let me set the hard line for you: Prove it. If it has cultural impact outside of League of Legends, show that. If it does not, it should not be an independent article. It is then best covered in the main article without puffery. Red Phoenix talk 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix: Check the article again (restored the more lengthy version) only 793 words (4,881 characters) in two paragraphs out of the 1,461 words 9,030 characters can be construed as being in-universe. But the reality is there is detail about the development of the world and commentary from developers interlaced with in-universe statements.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect there are references but not enough to make it pass a stand alone article. fails wp:sigcov. Dtt1Talk 15:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to League of Legends#Setting and lore, agree with Masem, Zxcvbnm, and Red Phoenix. No sigcov of the world/universe itself at this time. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ferret: check all the reference I listed again. Also it's been the subject of academic writing and in WP:PRINT.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref #1 - Passing mention of Runeterra in context of a game announcement, no lore or setting details or sigcov. #2 has actual lore details/setting but as a League dedicated fan site, I do not consider it independent. Reliability would also be questionable. #3 Some world information here, reliability questionable, no real critical analysis just cruft details. #4, like #1 is a passing mention in the context of a game announcement. #5, no coverage of the setting or lore, product announcement. #6 Two paragraphs, almost all of it fluff about "Have you been wondering about the world?". Really? Significant coverage? #7 Definitely has some lore details, but all within the context of a game and how to build decks. My !vote stays the same, there's nothing in any of this that shows an independent topic. As for academic writing and PRINT, offline sources are of course acceptable but you can't simply claim they exist, some sort of evidence is required. What academic writings? Which prints? -- ferret (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC
        • Also check the Red Bull web article I linked into the article. The story of League of Legends was written about by an academic in this article:Bembeneck, Emily Joy. Matthew Wilhelm Kapell (ed.). "Game, Narrative and Storyworld in league of legends". The Play Versus Story Divide in Game Studies: Critical Essays. Some google scholar hits I haven't looks over yet: [5]--Prisencolin (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Ferret: This comment here seems to have gone un-replied, so I want to reiterate that this topic is of academic significance and has been written about by real scholars.--Prisencolin (talk)
            • I don't owe you a reply and counter to every comment you make. I've made my position on this topic clear. -- ferret (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Of all the arguments I've made, the fact that this topic has been written about in academia might be the important one, even thought it's only something I've uncovered in the past few days while arguing this AFD.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • You're assuming a lack of response indicates a lack of review or comprehension by participants. The issue remains the same. Coverage is of League of Legends. What you've failed to demonstrate to a fair sized participation in this AFD is that there is significant coverage of the world itself that is sufficiently independent of the game. I do not plan to reply to this AFD again. -- ferret (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Ferret: The time I finally bring up some irrefutable evidence of this subject's lasting sigifcance, and you don't respond but instead you say this, so be it. I can't stress enough that this topic has been covered in scholarly literature, thus meeting whatever floating final criterion for standalone article notability exists here.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, way too in-universe without any WP:SIGCOV. Really trivial stuff. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Soetermans: @P,TO 19104: @Ferret: @Red Phoenix: @Masem: Some more reliable source covering the topic, demonstrating WP:SIGCOV. (will be updating this list): Marshall, Cassandra (July 13, 2016). "The ups and downs of League of Legends' lore reboot". PC Gamer.Stoneback, Robert (5 September 2014). "League of Legends Will Reboot Story, Ditch Old Lore, in Future Updates".
I'm not convinced that coverage by these sources would merit its own article. We need creation, development, reception, that kind of stuff. It's still WP:GAMECRUFT, mostly relying on in-universe details. These sources can make a properly referenced section on the main article. (P.S. my username, like my actual last name, is written with a capital letter, without one I don't get the ping; vice versa ferret is written without a capital letter :) ). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen anything that will change my !vote yet. -- ferret (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed my mind about my !vote either. I don't see enough weight to keep this as a standalone article. Red Phoenix talk 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soetermans: Check the article again: for disclosure the content been moved to League of Legends universe and lore. It's only around half about about in-universe content. Also there's a reception section that's been added, and even though it consists of two sentences it will be added shortly.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, without all the in-universe fluff, it's three paragraphs long with six references. This can easily be part of League of Legends. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone reading this discuss, the article has since been restored to the previous version which consists of over 10 paragraphs.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Be aware that I have issued a warning to Prisencolin about disruption in relation to this AFD. During the AFD, the article was moved from Runeterra to "League of Legends universe and lore", which was opposed and moved back to Runeterra earlier today on technical grounds. Following this, Prisencolin stripped most of the content from "Runeterra" and tried to create "League of Legends universe and lore" separately, which I consider a disruptive attempt to circumvent this AFD discussion. I redirected it back. In addition, the absolutely unsuitable League of Legends champion was also created, and I've already redirected it. This was clearly an attempt to get around the previous AFD and AFC declines of Draft:List of League of Legends champions, which he's been forumshopping about. -- ferret (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the claims in this discussion are complete nonsense and is clear that anyone commenting here has not actual read the entirety of the article. First: "It's still WP:GAMECRUFT, mostly relying on in-universe details." I will spell it out entirely here:
You think copy-pasting almost an entire article is helping your case? I think it's pretty disruptive for this discussion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soetermans: I'm trying to compress the size the text so I can annotate it for this discussion. I'm only doing it because you clearly seem to be unwilling to read the details yourself.--Prisencolin (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So much for WP:AGF. I think it's time you should WP:DROPTHESTICK, Prisencolin. You're being very disruptive, in this discussion, with League of Legends universe and lore and the deletion review. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you think changing the text to an unreadable 60% size somehow invites people to start reading it? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soetermans: It's been moved to userspace for now until I can get it looking okay. You need to actually address one of the point I made and actually see the sources instead of cherry picking the article's faults.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soetermans: Apologies if I misunderstood you, but if you just admitted that you haven't fully read the article, than I'd think that means your opinion on this matter is invalid until you do.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'd like me to admit that I haven't read Runeterra? I copy-pasted the text into WordCounter. It's 206 words and takes approximately 45 seconds to read. I've done so three times now. Am I missing something? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soetermans: I'm talking about the old version of the article which is 2,163 words 14,588 characters (including references, which should all be looked over) according to WordCounter.net. And that version is not not just all unverified, overly detailed in-univeres information that would bore non-fans of the game. In case the old edit history in unavailable for some reason, I re-copy merged it into the mainspace article.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should drop the stick and all the accusations that everyone opposed to you either is making bad faith evaluations of the topic, or is part of some conspiracy that hates the game, and let the AFD conclude in due time. -- ferret (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: Systematic bias against this topic even within the gaming community itself is real, let's not be naive. I'm not just pulling these allegations out of thin air. If you need proof I can produce it. In any case note to closer while there appears to be more votes for a redirect than anything. There is no clear consensus what the target should be. Some are pointing to Legends of Runeterra and others to League of Legends. Until one of two can be decided upon, this afd shouldn't be going anywhere today. The fact that there is this confusion is another reason why this topic should exist as a standalone article.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, that's wikilawyering for you to say that. You know full and well there's not a controversy between editors about the redirect target (otherwise it would have been discussed), and saying that means the article should be kept is ridiculous. You're wikilawyering. Don't do that. Red Phoenix talk 02:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix: That might be true if it weren't for the fact that another editor just brought this notion up. Regardless look at the suggestions for redirect being brought up here. Some are saying League of Legends, other Legends of Runeterra, yet others don't even specify which. For a third-party to this discussion it's not clear which it would be. The fact that you threw some policy at me instead of addressing this issue directly confirms this.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I told you to stop wikilawyering and you did it again. No wonder no one is taking you seriously here. You refuse to listen. Honestly, I see no point in trying to reason with you further. Don't ping me again - I don't want to hear more of you repeating the same argument and trying to lawyer your way into getting this article kept. Red Phoenix talk 03:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you encounter one of best arguments yet and don’t know how to reply so you just throw some shade and link to some discussion guidelines that’s a sign that this AFD is procedurally flawed. Anyways if you want to bow out without addressing the existence of the scholarly articles as a source, I’ll just reiterate that’s they’re here.-—Prisencolin (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeatedly suggested that the editors involved in these discussions directly have a bias against the game. There's no way you can prove that, and it's a borderline personal attack against those editors. Stop it. The consensus hear is pretty clear and it's time you started to hear it. Where the redirect ultimately lands is irrelevant, in that the AFD has a clear consensus the topic is not notable. That editors haven't focused on the aspect of the redirect target does not indicate any confusion and certainly doesn't suggest a need for a standalone topic. -- ferret (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say for anyone here on an individual level but it's clear that League of Legends is disliked in certain circles. Nothing personal is meant, but systematic bias is real and I'm just pointing it out. This is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, no amount of votes can change the fact that a redirect one way or the other is a bad idea or that there's enough coverage to justify a standalone article.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusation here is ludicrous. Just because a bias exists out there in the world doesn’t mean it exists here in this discussion with these participants. There’s no evidence anyone here is making comments out of their distaste for the subject. Unless you can back up what you say, stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still fail to grasp the notion that we need more significant coverage. But that's okay, it's pretty obvious where this discussion is headed. There's an easy solution to for the redirect: redirect it to Legends of Runeterra, because of the word... Runeterra. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Soetermans: That's not the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT though, League of Legends has been around for around 10 years compared to Legends of Runeterra. In any case over the course of this discussion I've added the significant coverage that is needed, but it seems to be continuously ignored by other editors.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator I would like to reiterate why I nominated this article for deletion:

  1. This article has too many primary sources, although PCGamer.com may be somewhat reliable, it is too close to the subject given its industry to solidiy notability. Again, PCGamer.com is an industry source, therefore it is a primary source. We cannot determine the notablity of the article just with that source.
  2. Secondly, most of these sources mostly mention the developer of the game or the game itself. These do not determine notability.
  3. Even with the poor refs put aside, this article is full of Gamecruft. Anyone reasonable enough would use the WP:TNT.

Best, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P,TO 19104: Thank you for coming back to comment on this discussion, but I did want to address the concerns you have.
  1. PC Gamer would not be considered a primary source because it is independent of the game League of Legends, it's developers and publishers Riot Games and Tencent and the source itself has been determined to be a reliable source for video game articles as per WP:VGRS. It is only one of the dozens of other reliable sources such as Verge, Kotaku, Polygon, IGN, and the academic paper "Game, Narrative and Storyworld in league of legends" published in the journal: The Play Versus Story Divide in Game Studies: Critical Essays.
  2. I don't understand what you mean. Wouldn't the game being mentioned in sources indicate that the topic is notable and not the other way around?
  3. In-game information is presented in a WP:PRECISE manner, conforming to MOS:VG to the best degree.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Runeterra features in multiple media, with a ton more upcoming [6]. Discussion of the shared universe of Runeterra is in RS. It not only stands alone based on the RS, but even if you wanted to redirect it there would be no good redirect and a disambig would be the best you could hope for. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge. It’s pretty rare that “fictional video game settings” need their own article. Some info is good. Other is cruft. But there’s not enough to warrant its own article. (Perhaps move some of the content to wikia or something?) Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Leaving out Prisencolin's embarassing attempts to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion with weird, nonsensical allegations, the article boils down to passing mentions in other sources and nothing that constitutes notability. Give me significant coverage, not unrelated comments mentioned in articles that don't actually pertain to the topic. What about Runeterra is so important and noteworthy that it must be covered in its own article? This is easily something that can be summarized in League of Legends, and not something that needs its own page. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would anyone object to a requested move of this article? I think the article title creates a critical misunderstanding when it comes to assessing significant coverage of this topic in sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to where? The name appears accurate to me as it covers the fictional shared universe of multiple media. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Although we've never met, Prisencolin and I became Facebook friends in 2017 because of shared, non-Wikipedia interests, which we then briefly chatted about. I was messaged about this AfD on Facebook Messenger and for general advice on the situation. Except possibly for being done off-wiki – maybe because of my reduced editing – it was otherwise compliant with WP:CANVASS. I brought 2016 League of Legends World Championship to Good Article status and frequently participated in these kinds of discussions. I have recommended that Prisencolin take a step back from this AfD.
Keep. WP:HEYMANN is probably triggered by a major revamp of the article that excised the most problematic, fancrufty elements and refocused it on a real-world perspective. The article has multiple sources listed at WP:VG/RS that discuss League lore in an out-of-universe fashion (e.g. Gangplank's death, reception, etc.). There's also non-video game focused sources such as academic articles that are primarily focused on the lore (e.g. [7]) and the Washington Post. Per WP:SIGCOV, this is sufficient, since these sources go beyond trivial mentions, even if the League universe is not always the main topic of the sources. The length of the article and Runeterra's existence in multiple notable works, including non-Riot properties such as D&D, means it would be hard to upmerge into the already not-short League article and is better as a spin-off. The drama surrounding this AfD isn't good, but based on the sources available, the article should be kept on the merits per WP:NEXIST so it can be improved. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Potentially there could be something here but no real.argument that this is that and the description of the sourcing falls short of the gng. That hasn't really be countered by the keep arguments so the delete case seems more policy based Spartaz Humbug! 21:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The California Review

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

The sourcing for this former campus paper is so piss-poor that I do not believe in its notability. There's a few newspaper articles from over thirty years ago that mention it because of a little dust-up at the time, and there's a few mentions in more recent publications. But this doesn't add up to notability by our standards, if we want to be serious encyclopedia: a sentence and a half here, a half sentence about a cartoon here, an interview with an editor here. Take those three sources (the rest is all primary stuff), and you have "The California Review is a conservative student paper that once ran a cartoon". Drmies (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge to University of California, San Diego. It doesn't seem notable enough for an article it's own, but it might worth a mention in the University of California article due to the dust-up. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I added a newspaper article by the Christian Science Monitor in 1983: "Conservative papers emerge on college campuses". The syndicated article says that the California Review was part of a wave of conservative college newspapers founded in 1982 and 1983, and uses California Review as the lead example. I also added an article syndicated by the Copley News Service, "Campus right irks lefties", talking specifically about the first issue of the paper. The Review was shut down in 1983 after making a rape joke, and they went to federal court to force the university to continue their funding. This is much more than "a little dust-up". The paper has received national press attention on a number of occasions, from their very first issue. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editing then Archive based on their website it seems the current version is not pushing content as often and there appears to be a second site tied to a former editor. The page is obviously in need of an update since I was requested to work on it when the paper was revived. And if you look in the edit history they allegedly lost at least one editor, something I can attest to personally, which has not been reported by them indicating some kind of issue. Bgrus22 (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without a demonstrated link between the 2 (or is it 3?) publications, and with the current versions clearly not notable, it comes down to whether the original California Review deserves encyclopedic coverage. Hm let's see. It published for less than two years. It was a campus giveaway. Its initial $6K funding came from the Institute for Educational Affairs; there was nothing organic or spontaneous about that "wave of conservative college newspapers." The California Review's claim to fame was a series of odious, "controversial" racist and gay-bashing remarks, leading up to a climax in which they called the defendants of the Cheryl Araujo case "six brave men". Four of those six were convicted of aggravated rape. The federal suit was over $4050 in university funding & office space. They received the office space. I see no journalistic, academic or legal notability. --Lockley (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...Lockley, it sounds like you know more about the story than is currently in the article. In the sources I reviewed yesterday, I didn't see anything about the Institute for Educational Affairs, Cheryl Araujo or the $4050, so apparently you know about that from other sources that aren't currently here. I'd like to know where you got the information. I think if you're this familiar with a 35-year-old dispute about a student paper, then it's got to be notable enough to have attracted your attention. There may not be any journalistic, academic or legal merit, but I think there's notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Toughpigs:. You'll find a reference to the Institute for Educational Affairs in the article. Beyond that, I look stuff up the same as you! newspapers.com! For example, the L.A. Times of June 10, 1983 had primary coverage I'm surprised you missed. It said, "... The latest (California Review) edition called those who participated in a barroom gang rape in Massachusetts 'six brave men' and called the rape itself a victory for the sexual liberation movement." So, it wasn't a single "rape joke" that shut the paper, as you said above. What shut the paper was a cruel attack on rape victim Cheryl Araujo, the last straw in a pattern of grossly offensive material. All that said, it's the tiny stakes that make this non-notable. As to your claim that whatever attracts my eye must be notable and therefore belongs in wikipedia (...laughing), that's a much funnier joke. --Lockley (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I figured that you must have known about it personally somehow, because the only other explanation would be that you went looking for press coverage, and you found even more than I did, and yet you still think it's not notable, which wouldn't make any sense. — Toughpigs (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lockley: as I stated before the primary site on the wikipage claims within their interviews that they are a continuation whereas the unmentioned website of the same name is operated by former editors. Bgrus22 (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KidAd: the old version meets notability but the 2 new versions would probably not qualify. I imagine thats part of the problem with the current article. Bgrus22 (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom, alternate merge to UCSD for historical purposes: Fails WP:NORG. A defunct campus newspaper that was active for a couple of years. The use of primary sources, especially multiple listings of the same source, DO NOT advance notability. This is even more of an issue when the sources are just articles showing the paper existed. I do not see that questioned but the notability for a stand-alone article. The scant non-primary sources that are more about certain incidences other than the paper do not tip the scale. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has much to say about itself, but per WP:SPS that can only be given limited weight when unaccompanied by a secondary source; the actual amount of third-party, independent sourcing is low, and too low to pass WP:BASIC. ——Serial 15:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Faiers

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

Poor refs. Fails WP:GNG. Has not starred in any major productions. Fails WP:ENT. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also worth noting that the nominator is a new Wikipedian who in their words ‘loves deleting pages’. I highly doubt this Wikipedian understands WP:ENT.

Taliarycroft (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lithopsian (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sóc Sơn, Hanoi

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

A recently expanded redirect about the capital township of the target district, and the author is insisting on keeping the article. Notability is dubious and it currently contains no information that isn't at the target article. Seems to be part of a campaign to mass create stubs for the capital townships of every district, around Hanoi, at least. Lithopsian (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. My proposal appears to have been flawed, or at least poorly expressed. Also, 30ChuaPhaiLaTet has been blocked as a sock and most edits have been rolled back, so discussing them further seems pointless. Lithopsian (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lithopsian Some other provinces, like Bac Giang Province, Bac Lieu Province, ... have stubs about every small communes and villages. Just look at these, Template:Bac Giang Province, Template:Bac Lieu Province. So why can't I create one? Those created stubs are about every single villages, and they also had a single line simply stating that it is a village of the district (yet they have been existing for 10 years now). Meanwhile I'm only creating stubs about the district capitals (which is obviously more notable). If you keep insisting on deleting mine, then you should also consider deleting every articles in those templates that I listed 30ChuaPhaiLaTet (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muntakhab Ahadith

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, doesn't meet WP:BOOKCRIT. I did google search but found nothing other than amazon & other book selling site. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are refeences: Janson, Marloes (2014). Islam, Youth and Modernity in the Gambia: The Tablighi Jama'at. Cambridge University Press. p. 244. ISBN 978-1-107-04057-1. Retrieved 12 July 2020.Religion on the Move!: New Dynamics of Religious Expansion in a Globalizing World. BRILL. 2012. p. 174. ISBN 978-90-04-24337-8. Retrieved 12 July 2020.43.245.120.78 (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Bacon

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

It looks like this footballer never played in a fully professional league and has no cups for the national team, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alexandra Stan. (non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 04:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me Home (Alexandra Stan song)

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

Similar discussions are underway for similar articles "VKTM" which Inna over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VKTM and "Sober (Inna song)" over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sober (Inna song). Firstly, it's important to note that the article should not be classified as a WP:GA - it fails on on criteria 2 (verifiable - independent sources) and 2 (broad in coverage per Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#The_six_good_article_criteria. GA status aside, when you exclude the YouTube and iTunes sources, it hasn't received extensive coverage and is really a WP:STUB. While there are some fleeting mentions from independent sources, there isn't enough to warrant growth beyond a stub. There are some guidelines on stubs at WP:NSONG which say "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". This falls into that category too. The song just isn't notable enough for its own article - coverage is limited and the skeleton of the article is made up of commercial or non-independent sources. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 19:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 19:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 19:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her song hasn't charted in any country (same as most of her recent songs). She's almost a one-hit wonder on the international stage, this song is hardly important enough at this point in time. If by some chance it becomes an international hit, we can revisit it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alexandra Stan. In response to the above comment, per WP:NSONG, chart placement may be an indication of notability, but notability is best demonstrated through significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Whether or not Stan s a one-hit wonder or if this song somehow becomes an international hit is not relevant to this discussion. I do not think this song has enough coverage for a separate article, but it is a viable search term so a redirect may be a alternative to deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With only one source, Celebmix, which I have some doubts regading its reability, it fails WP:NSONG as it doesn't provide significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources (one isn't enough). MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - There is indeed not enough coverage in secondary sources, and I personally have my doubts about CelebMix too. I do think it is remarkable how CNF can write articles this good despite the lack of coverage.--NØ 16:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per the Aoba47. Dtt1Talk 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indusface Pvt Ltd

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

Despite the ref bombing(ref spamming) a before search shows the organization doesn’t satisfy WP:ORG. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Inna. (non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 04:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sober (Inna song)

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

A similar discussion is under way for the song "VKTM" which Inna is featured on over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VKTM. The article should not have passed WP:GA status as it fails on criteria 2 (verifiable) and 2 (broad in coverage) (Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#The_six_good_article_criteria). GA aside, when you exclude the YouTube and iTunes sources, it hasn't received extensive coverage and is really a WP:STUB. There are some guidelines on stubs at WP:NSONG which say articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This falls into that category too. The song just isn't notable enough for its own article - coverage is limited and the skeleton of the article is made up of promotional or non-independent sources. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 19:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 19:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 19:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Inna due to a lack of significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. It is a shame because I really enjoy this song. I propose a redirect as this is a viable search term and could help readers more than an outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. The coverage is minimal and this should have never even been considered for GA status. Can we get reviewers who understand the GA criteria? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Efezino

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her hence doesn’t satisfy GNG. Fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Subject participated in a music reality tv show but failed to emerge successful. A before search turns up empty. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So in summary what you are basically saying is subject doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. I concur hence the AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Derrick Johnson (activist)#Facebook: Stop Hate For Profit campaign. No consensus to Keep, and after a relist, a consensus that it should be Redirected (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Hate For Profit

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

This initiative is mentioned in the Facebook page and should just redirect there. It could also be mentioned in NAACP. But we don't create articles for every individual campaign launched by advocacy groups. ZimZalaBim talk 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tisbury Great Pond

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

This article's subject is an insignificant pond-not nearly as significant to pass WP:GEOLAND.

PS: I'm the dude who was restricted from Twinkle for being incompetent, but I think I nailed it now. JTZegers (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum2.0 18:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@M V D H P: I have looked at the citations, however there is not enough content to prove that the article is significant. This might be a case of WP:TOOSHORT. JTZegers (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: JTZegers, you misunderstood WP:TOOSHORT; that guideline says that the length of the article is not a reason to delete a page. What matters is the quality of the sources, and the Vineyard Gazette coverage establishes notability. For example, this article goes into some detail on the chemical makeup of the pond. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Pratyush (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surya Roshni Limited

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP HighKing++ 19:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ""Surya Roshni Ltd."". NDTV. Retrieved June 28, 2020.
  2. ^ ""'A leader needs to be accessible'"". Hindustan Times. Retrieved June 28, 2020.
  3. ^ ""Padma Awards 2020"". Ministry of Home Affairs. Retrieved June 28, 2020.
  • Speedy keep per [15][16][17], it easily fulfils WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Azuredivay (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Azuredivay, At least two of those are questionable sources. No idea on the first source - not much information about the publisher, but nothing immediately jumped out as a vanity press. Nothing in google books, so I'm hoping you've got a copy of the book and could given some information about the coverage of Surya Roshni Limited. Just saying the source helps notability and nothing else doesn't give much information. The second is a self-published investment magazine from an investment advisory company. It could be a short blurb, could be something long, but it's absolutely self-published so questionable on helping notability, at best. The third is from a list of investments from various steel companies in developing economies. There are multiple mentions of the company, but it's a short blurb about the exact same investment, in english and in french. At best this would support that in 2010 they started a memoradum of understanding. That's it. Not helpful for notability. Ravensfire (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely fails WP:INDEPTH & WP:NCORP. 119.157.244.206 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— 119.157.244.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strike out vote by blocked IP sock. Gotitbro (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Existing article sources are nearly all primary and the one that isn't is a mere company summary listing. Nothing there to support notability. The three sources given above aren't much help, two of them are flat out not helpful and the third is not widely available so the benefit is questionable at best. A google search turned up more company summary listings but that was it. No good articles focusing on the company itself. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article isn't very good, but it could be retargeted to say "Surya is an Indian manufacturer of electrical products, including LEDs and fans". A news search for "Surya LED" brought up more promising hits like this one and this one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A World At War

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

    This monster wargame is not notable. Few sources exist beyond BoardGameGeek, ConSimWorld, and the publisher's site, and it's not particularly well-known on BGG. Could be redirected to its ancestor Rise and Decline of the Third Reich. Ungulates (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I grant you it's a niche interest, but lots of board wargames have articles with similar number of page views (average about 10-20 per day). Nobody's forcing anybody to read it, and it would be a pity to throw it away. It must be one of the most detailed simulations of WW2 ever designed. The ancestor game is certainly notable and has even been referenced in a published novel. But there are several descendant games and several spin offs - too much to put in one article, and perfectly appropriate for a family of articles.Paulturtle (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC) It was reprinted on GMT's P500 (ie. at least 500 pre-orders needed to reprint) a couple of years ago, so people are still buying it.Paulturtle (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No one's being forced to read it, but WP:NOTE is pretty clear that if a topic can't be shown to be notable it shouldn't have a Wikipedia page. If the very extensive discussion of mechanics and strategy is worth saving, it should be moved to Wikibooks or a another place where it would be appropriate. Ungulates (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure that's true any more. Military History articles, for example, permit and indeed encourage the writing of articles on each and every unit above a certain size or officer above a certain rank, even though there is little in the way of independent third party coverage - they are simply deemed to be notable within the context of the larger topic. I doubt that's the only area of interest which has started to go down this route over the years. As for articles on historically accurate board wargames, few of them have independent sources beyond Boardgamegeek and Consimworld - some of the older, classic games have lists of articles about them in long-defunct magazines but that's about it. Wikipedia does have vast numbers of articles about obscure albums and TV programmes and computer games which got tagged for questionable notability and then left alone.Paulturtle (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Ungulates (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Current redirect ↪ A World at War
    Logs: 2019-01 move to → A World at War
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above editor is perfectly entitled to his opinion that the article should be thrown away. However, he's not entitled to try to give his opinion a veneer of "authority" by misquoting Wikipedia policies. Specifically:
    It's not entirely clear what policies about computer software articles have got to do with anything, although I suppose analogies could be made.
    “does not come close to fulfilling any requirements found in the Five pillars”. Patent nonsense. The five “pillars” are that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, consists of free content, is written from a neutral point of view, that editors should be civil to one another, and that it has no firm rules. I don’t see how it falls short of any of that.
    It’s not “original research” – it is a factual description of the game, similar to the plot summary of a film. The source is self-evident and available for anybody to purchase and verify if they wish. To coin a phrase, we could keep the above comment filed as a failure to understand what “original research” is. The rule against Original Research is there to stop crackpots from posting their own pet theories in “serious” articles, not to stop people from posting obvious factual descriptions of things that are self-evident.
    “fails the criteria (#2) of the WikiProject”. Nope again. Those criteria are to refine the style guidelines, to ensure NPOV and NOR (discussed in previous bullet point), to create a notability guide (I don’t see any evidence that this has been done), and to ensure that notable topics are covered. Again, I don’t see that any of that is being breached.
    As for the "21 line source", the main “source” for the article is the game’s hefty rules & reference manuals, which from memory run to several hundred pages (they used to available online at one point on the game’s website, along with other essays and commentaries about aspects of the game, but I’ve no idea if they still are). That is considerably more than the length of the article as it currently stands.
    Regards, Paulturtle (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I'm here, I note that Dungeons & Dragons, a game I haven't played since the early 1980s, has a family of articles, some of which go into quite esoteric detail about various versions of the game and expansion kits. Efforts have been made in places to provide "references", but many of these are simply "circular" references to guides produced by enthusiasts, rather than wholly objective third-party commentators. Obviously it's more widely-played than the Third Reich system and its descendants.Paulturtle (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why you view this as some kind of personal affront, but I'd like you stop doing that. With regard to some of the claims that you have made: Obviously extensive discussion of strategy and mechanics with no external references is original research. Obviously. The game's manual, while no doubt an authoritative source on the mechanics of the game itself, is of no use for establishing the notability of the game. Wikipedia policies designated as official policies are not optional. I am not, of course, saying that this game is bad or shouldn't be discussed; I am saying that it does not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia page. Ungulates (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because somebody does not agree with you, or, worse, thinks that you are wrong, does not mean that they are making “claims” or that they are taking “personal affront”. And I’m certainly not going to stop responding to somebody who posts a bombastic comment full of references to Wikipedia “policies” which he clearly hasn’t understood.
    The policy against Original Research is laid down clearly, in plain English, for anybody to read in the opening paragraphs of the article on that policy. It means that information has to be verifiable to reliable published sources, even if it is not directly cited, and does not state conclusions that are not obvious from those sources. Put two sources together and present a conclusion deduced solely by the editor in question and it becomes “synth”. The plot section of a film article is not “original research” because the source is self-evident: watch the film. A description of the mechanics of the game is verifiable from the hefty rules manuals of the game. “Obviously”.
    I’ve done quite a lot of serious article-writing over the years, although less so lately. OR is hard to define but my God you recognise it when you come across it – somebody relatively new to a controversial subject and overconfident in his abilities, flicks through a few books, sometimes (but not always) published compilations of primary sources, and thinks he has discovered that the historians who aren’t telling him what he wants to hear are “wrong”. There’s not much you can do other than say “you need to read and learn more” and hope he has the maturity not to, as the saying goes, “take personal affront”.
    You are quite right that the game’s extensive rulebooks are not in themselves proof of notability, but that is a separate matter. In reality very few Wikipedia policies are completely hard and fast, other than that you can’t libel living people. I’ve already drawn your attention to articles about military hardware and senior officers, where rules about notability are interpreted a lot more loosely (to put it mildly). Almost very objection you’ve raised could be raised against the families of articles devoted to well-known games like chess or poker, which are presumably read by people who enjoy those games or want to learn them. Of course those games are clearly and demonstrably notable, but for the moment I’m talking about the nature and content of the articles themselves.
    The editor above claimed, wrongly as far as I can see, that the article is in breach of the game project’s rules about “notability”. In fact the section to which he posted a link says that it is an ongoing aspiration of that project to come up with a policy on notability. They don’t appear to have actually done so. Regards, Paulturtle (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article cites no substantial third-party coverage and therefore fails WP:N. No appropriate sources have been proposed in this AfD either. Sandstein 14:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete mainly per Sandstein. While there has been much assertion of the subject's notability, the walk hasn't matched the talk: where are the sources that demonstrate it? Not on the article, where they should be: a WP:BEFORE indicates that that is vecaus ethey do not exist. ——Serial 15:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several sources were noted in the !votes and consensus was this passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 04:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bullet Points (comics)

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

    This limited comic books series doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. The comic books database appears to be user-generated, as are the various fandom and wikia sites mentioning this. The enacademic.com entry for this series appears to be a Wikipedia mirror, TVTropes is an unreliable source, and the various blog listings and database inclusions all appear to be user-generated/self published. I'm not finding any coverage of this limited series in reliable, secondary sources. Hog Farm Bacon 18:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Countess Donata of Castell-Rüdenhausen

    edit
    Countess Donata of Castell-Rüdenhausen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    There is no indication of notability in this article. It is all about whom she married and to whom she gave birth. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, however. This person does not appear to have been covered extensively by reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete does not appear to be notable enough for an article. - dwc lr (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nothing in the article demonstrates notability beyond being born into aristocracy. JoelleJay (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep: is the mother of the would-be Kaiser – i.e. head of the Hohenzollern family - Germany's former Imperial family. Her son has mounted no less than 120 legal cases against the press or reporters with regard to reporting accuracy.[18] So this would surely assist the English journos and others in getting biographical details right, and possibly avoiding lawyers when writing about Germany's royal family. Aside from that, the family retain a prominent national position due to historical legacies. They feature in the press: not just constantly in the tabloid press, but in respectable national press because of reparations cases. So it's useful to know, whatever one's political shading, who is who. A Google News search for "Donata Castell Rüdenhausen" brings 37 articles. HOWEVER, her Wiki article needs to be retitled with her Christian name before the term 'Countess' – as while it is what she would have been commonly called, it is not legally accurate. (Titles in Germany were abolished after WWI, but royals and aristocrats were permitted to incorporate them as names, which they have done.) ClearBreeze (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the real world notability is commonly inherited, and an encyclopedia that aims to be comprehensive should reflect that. Informationally useful articles on minor royals and aristocrats are being deleted due to a cancel culture stemming from personal politics and/or personal resentment. The embittered individuals persisting in it, and for no other reasons, need to look at their own lives. It needs to be strongly resisted as it's utterly corrosive to Wikipedia. It's book burning. You want to do good? Try editing a Marcos family article, or the wildly-laudatory and distorted articles of other figures that are protected by Wiki gangs. Targeting the articles of harmless aristoeuros is really lame. ClearBreeze (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: No evidence of notability via WP:GNG or otherwise. Coverage consists solely of minor mentions from genealogy sites. Wikipedia is also explicitly not for recording genealogical information. — MarkH21talk 12:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Nothing in the article indicates notability. I attempted a Google News search as suggested by ClearBreeze (incidentally, now indefinitely blocked) and it did not produce anything (but I admit to not being certain I did it correctly). Supposing, hypothetically, that sources did exist somewhere that indicate notability, the current article would still be a case for WP:TNT: all of the content is either genealogical database cruft or utterly trivial padding ("She was raised Lutheran" um ok great). (Also, of course, there's the utterly ridiculous idea that a person born in 1950 held beginning in 1975 the title "Princess of Prussia".) --JBL (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    James D. Marks

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

    Fails WP:BIO. No effective referencing. Its all company news. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 17:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This is one of several articles claimed by "Wikiprofessionals Inc." to have been created by it for paying customers. It was created in 2012 by User:Danielj55, whose only edits appear to revolve around the creation of this article, and making links to it. BD2412 T 18:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: Good info. My hope is that editors look at this article and determine if the person is notable without dismissing the article based on an apparent COI. I have to investigate, however based on his patents alone...I think we need to look at him with fresh eyes. Lightburst (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear from the articles' edit history that you already caught the mistake yourself, but just to emphasize for those participating in this discussion, there is a second individual with the exact same name, and the various research papers and patents involving bio-research that come up with searches are actually from that individual, not the subjects of this article. Rorshacma (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly whenever there is a suspected COI we have editors who demand deletion. As if notability is automatically lost if COI exists. I do not think this person's only notability stems from his patents. However I am not sure I should spend more time on this subject since the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a big NO! Cheers Lightburst (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. His claimed notability appears to be his leadership of TheBody.com. This sounds like a very worthwhile website, but it lacks an article here. If it had one, and if this were unable to accommodate worthwhile material about Marks, then Marks might warrant an article of his own. But as it is, no. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:BIO, fails WP:SIGCOV. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Subject passes WP:ANYBIO#2 Lightburst (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Spammy article with no clear evidence that Mr Marks is notable created by a COI account. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Discounting the obvious non-notability generating sources (the patents, profile pages, etc), what's left are a bunch of press releases, and some coverage from the school paper of the high school that he attended, and then spoke at once. The sources are also a bit misleading, as it seems that in at least one case, the same press release is being used as two separate sources as they were published on multiple sites, to bloat the reflist. Note that there is another James D. Marks, a M.D. Ph.D., who appears to be considerably more notable than this individual, and pretty much all actual results in reliable sources are actually on the doctor. There were some arguments in the prior AFD that the website he founded and ran until its sale is notable, and thus this individual is as well. However, not only does this run counter to WP:NOTINHERITED, but I'm not finding a whole lot of evidence that the website would pass the WP:GNG itself, anyway. Rorshacma (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete due to lack of reliable independent secondary sources about the subject. Guy (help!) 10:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete - As the article seem to be having references from Paid publications a lot like This mostly PR works. as the site PR newswire is a self publishing website not notable Dtt1Talk 12:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Most of the article is not about him but about his website, and what's about him is cobbled from mentions in passing and even primary sources like the patent office submissions. Seems to fail WP:NBIO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While all the "keep" !votes were of the week variety, there has to be a firm consensus in favour of deletion for that to happen, and, after three weeks and two relists, that is not going to occur. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 15:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Markowicz Fine Art

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

    Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, has been written up in news/magazines/sources but of MFA itself only appear to be mentions ie. "if you want to see .... go to MFA or .... can be seen/now showing at MFA" kind of words, where are the sources/articles that actually analyse the exhibitions/shows held there? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: A collection of weak sources, 16 on a stub-class article, can mean citation overkill but it can also mean better sourcs can be found. If I am going to give consideration to deleting articles on the arts I am going to look closely at the single sourced, out dated (possibly closed, possibly relocated, and certainly renamed), Dorsch gallery. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Avrom Honig

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

    No effective referencing. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 17:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yair Dabush

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

    Non-notable Youtuber that fails WP:GNG. Poorly written with a lack of citations (only 2) that are quite unreliable. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New England Independence Campaign

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

    Topic has not gotten ANY media recognition. Movement's most notable presence is a subreddit, "reddit.com/r/republicofNE" with 828 subscribers. Page also a direct copy and paste from their website.

    Jun 12 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_England_Independence_Campaign&action=history Edits added still resemble an advertisement... and to add the fact 90% of the sources are from the NEIC itself, one of which is a twitter with 9 followers. --Gabbobler (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - article content is 90% quoted from the organization's website, the results of a Google search are the social media pages of this organization and a list of minor secessionist movements in the US, and the website itself is full of grammatical errors and is hosted on a free Weebly site. Not notable. Cran32 (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Discussion was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now. As for my own view, organization clearly has not received any coverage from outside sources and is possibly speediable per WP:CSD#A7. @Gabbobler: If you wish to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall talk 16:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Spindoctor

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

    Non-notable DJ & Record Producer. Lack of independent reliable resources. A before search only shows announcement. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. DMySon 16:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I think someone chose to create this article because the DJ got a rush of significant media coverage for a few days back in May, including highly reliable stories from Reuters, Rolling Stone India, and several others. In short, he used to be a doctor but quit that job to go into music, and this year he quit his music career and went back to medicine to help fight the pandemic. I find this to be a very noble gesture, but in Wikipedia terms it does not bestow enough notability per WP:BLP1E. Meanwhile, his music career is totally non-notable on its own terms, with no reliable and significant coverage outside of the recent noble story, and he is only ever mentioned in relation to the rapper that he backs up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doomsdayer520: I really appreciate your research on the article and the effort you put in voting over here, But I guess its not a case of WP:BLP1E because the references like This and This whis is one of the Highly reliable refs The Telegraph are not at all discussing about his BLP1E thing they are on different secnario, You can also check this and This all are different one. Thanks Dtt1Talk 15:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He is indeed in those publications, but the first two are non-critical softball interviews that are likely related to promotional press releases, and the second two are lists of multiple artists in which he is only mentioned briefly. Wikipedia has a rule on "significant and reliable coverage" and those publications might be reliable in themselves but they did not discuss this DJ in any significant way. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Charli XCX discography. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Live at Emo's

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

    There has been no formal promotion or announcement, and no reliable sources are covering this supposed live album (WP:GNG). The only source cited is Tidal, which is known to have fan-made uploads occasionally slip through their system. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Edited 17:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Charli XCX discography - I agree with the previous voter's reasoning. This is indeed an official release and it just came out today as a surprise. Since it is a limited release it may not get much coverage, but maybe it will in the coming days as this famous person's new release gets noticed by the media. If that happens, the album article can be revived from redirect status. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of senior career goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo

    edit
    List of senior career goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:FANCRUFT. Literally the exact same type of list as List of Lionel Messi games. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    He is going to be the top scorer ever in the world's most popular sport and his personal article is one of the most popular regarding public figures, IMO this list is relevant for every fan of football (which includes a lot of people). This definitely doesn't qualify as WP:FANCRUFT. There is already a long list of his international goals, I don't really see the problem with this one. Maybe I can split the main list into years/seasons. I read the WP:NOTSTATS text and this list doesn't check any of the boxes. The context is clear and this article works as a separate article to further explain the stats presented in Cristiano Ronaldo and List of career achievements by Cristiano Ronaldo. GaiusAD (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I do agree that it doesn’t meet WP:NOTSTATS but it’s borderline fancruft, not to mention the fact that it’s extremely long. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The delete voters are all acting as if this is just any old footballer and pure fan cruft. But whenever I turn on the football they're always talking about Ronaldo and Messi and their extraordinary goal record and Pele is still regularly discussed. The goals they scored and their abilities dominate conversations in world football, this would get thousands of views a day. If it was a list of matches Federer had won in tennis it would be comparable. It makes perfect sense to document the top achievers in any sport in such detail.† Encyclopædius 19:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Delete – per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:FANCRUFT. As Kante4 stated above I am ok with international goals having article for record goalscorers as those games (and goals) happen less frequently and tend to gather more attention that regular club league or cup games, which tend to happen once a week if not more. Given that Ronaldo averages about a goal a game, that means that this article would have to be updated around once a week if not more. With hundreds if not thousands of entries, this would become difficult to monitor very quickly, and its encyclopedic value would be questionable. Maybe there is a way to merge some of this information to another article, but I haven't thought of a way yet. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ása Ástardóttir

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

    Non notable youtuber that fails WP:GNG. Poor sourcing as well. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Vangelis Raptopoulos

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

    I believe that tis article should be removed from Wikipedia. There is a lack of notability and his presence appears to be quite non-encyclopaedic. Most of the links have been taken from his own blog, whilst his presence in media is extremely limited. A few comment sections on a number of online sources is also not enough for notability. The person who created this added several links to a bunch of online pages, such as IMDB(!) - this person is just a novelist. Finally there is another mention of a "professorship"(what a claim!) at the Hellenic Open University. After some googling I only found that he is a teaching assistant - definitely not a professor. Glucken123 (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Leaning Keep: A cursory review of English and French-language sources reveals some scholarly attention to his work:
    I do not read Greek, but there appear to be additional sources in Greek at Raptopoulos' article in elwiki. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do read Greek. The Wiki Article is full of links to his blog. Glucken123 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Scholarly attention does not necessarily mean notability. As you can see the number of views or citations is close to 0. Glucken123 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. @Glucken123: BTW He definitely isn't a faculty member of the Hellenic Open University [20]; he is only an adjunct teaching assistant [21]. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Removed ! ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: the coverage in reliable sources identified by AleatoryPonderings is sufficient to satisfy WP:BK #1. If there were issues of unencyclopaedic tone or exaggeration for promotional purposes these seem to have been surmounted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pixel Experience

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

    Reviewed as a part of new article review process. Zero sources, no indication of wp:notability. The two apparent references are just places to download it. Article was over 2 months old as of date of AFD nomination North8000 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniele Catanzaro

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

    Clear COI in editing since creation (and the original creation looks like it may either have had a COI also, is a sock, a UPE, or some combination of the three). A comment at WT:MATH#Daniele Catanzaro notable? seems to indicate that this topic may not be notable under WP:NPROF. Izno (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Kj cheetham, thanks for your message. I am a neophyte on Wikipedia so the links above definitely prove useful to clarify some mechanisms at its core. I started to make contributions to some wiki pages because they contained an avalanche of wrong scientific information. I was surprised though to see that my edits were removed by random users (Spellsgood and Mvolz just to mention a few). Hence, as one of (the very few) academics working on a niche domain of phylogenetics, I decided to create first a wiki page to specify who I am and on which topic I work for, and then I modified again the above mentioned wiki pages. The wiki page Daniele Catanzaro was however marked as COI by Mvolz and Spellsgood and from there degenerated up to reaching the ridiculous “self-promoting” statement. Under this condition I do not feel like contributing anymore. Good work to the wikipedia community DC 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniele.Catanzaro (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. czar 02:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony Bignell

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

    Literally multiple citations of one page from a website that the subject's own agent felt was only worth getting trial hosting for. I don't see any independent sources but... Look, the subject's own agent used a web designer's trial page for hosting and called it a day, I'm too sober to imagine a clearer sign of lack of notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure - definitely one of the main characters in Coming of Age, appearing from the pilot to the end, and had a regular on off part in the Bill, but other than that a jobbing actor. Cant find much in the news as there is a Tony Bignell, a VP at Nike who seems to dominate.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely no reason to be deleted, it just needs someone to make it protected to stop the spam and cyber bullying as we’ve all seen how these things can end! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.9.52 (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Logs: 2008-11 ↻ restored, 2008-11 ✗ deleted, 2008-11 ↻ restored, 2008-11 ✗ A7, 2008-11 ↻ restored, 2008-11 ✗ A7, 2008-10 ✗ R3, 2008-10 ✗ R3
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article has 22 footnotes which appear at first glance appear to be 22 different sources, but all of them are the exact same page being cited for 22 credits this actor has had. And that page is, as the nom says, a temporary web hosting page, rather than a reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spinnin' Records , but to clarify, @Dream Focus:, have you effectively merged the materal already or should I do it now? ——Serial 16:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) ——Serial 16:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Spinnin' Records sublabels

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

    No reliable sources presented. All sources are WP:PRIMARY, coming direct from Spinnin' Records' own website. See also WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Habib Mousa

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

    This article fails in WP:FAILN and i cant find any sources in google after just 1 dead weblink inside article and it fails in WP:ORIGINAL Shadow4dark (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shadow4dark (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WP:BEFORE apparently missed these sources from Sweden: [22], [23], [24]. Notability is based on the existence of sources, not the linking of those sources from the current article state and this artist has generated coverage in independent RS in his current home country. This includes an apparent nomination for a "Best of Sweden" award, and although I can't determine if the award grants notability itself, the existence of WP:SIGCOV is demonstrated by these cites. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Still lack of independence sources Shadow4dark (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    America Needs You

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

    This is a press release. The references , are either general ones about charitable contributions , or pure press releases DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the additional presentation of reliable coverage, the duo meets WP:BAND. (non-admin closure) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    99 Percent

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

    Not notable hip hop group. No in-depth coverage. Renata (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Astur (typeface)

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

    No sources since 2009 and I can't really find anything about it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tonya Reiman

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

    Non notable author with WP:BEFORE showing no evidence of significant secondary coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for adding these sources. I would still argue this is not substantial coverage about the subject - a line or two in these cases - and in the case of Business Insider, whether the source is a reliable one. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    American Dental Hygienists' Association

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

    Brought to my attention via Wikipedia:Help_desk#Page_declined. Fails WP:NORG: the only third-party mentions I found online are passing mentions, usually a journalist getting the ADHA to give its opinion for a dentist-focused story. Note that this book with a promising title (given in the "further reading" section) has the ADHA as its publisher, hence it is WP:SPS. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Second Battle Group controversy

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

    This page was originally titled "Second Battle Group" with content about an unremarkable military re-enactment group, per this edit. Following a 2007 TV exposé about the unsavoury opinions of two of its members, the page became involved in a short but bloody edit war, culminating in its content being predominantly about this documentary, and the page was eventually move to its current title to reflect this. I don't feel that the group is notable per WP:CLUB, and the news coverage fails WP:LASTING. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WhatsOn

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

    The sole reason for this AFD discussion is its longevity as an article - it was created in 2009. The text of this article asserts "international media network founded ... in 1994", "publishes five guides throughout the year, The Student Guide, Music & Fashion Guide, The Pink Guide, The Gap Travel Guide & The Festival Guide, in addition to monthly magazines that are handed out free across the UK, USA & Bangladesh". If those assertions were plausible, this purported media network established in 1994 would have at the very least some internet coverage. WP:BEFORE done, and this is manifestly not the case. As with the most recent tag added to the article, this appears to be candidate for WP:A7 speedy deletion. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Austin Koledoye

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

    The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The sources used do not demonstrate notability. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tanjib Sarowar

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

    Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tolkien's Ring

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

    Book rightly tagged for notability since 2011, search finds nothing to demonstrate notability. Only link in article is to a Tolkien Society review (at best, a doubtful source) which calls it a "coffee-table book" with "content ensures that the coffee table is where it will stay" and suggests "skip it". This isn't a book we should be advertising, even with a stub. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete there is no 3rd party coverage at a level to justify the notability of this work. Just because a book covers a notable topic does not mean the book itself is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I found one short review in The Chesterton Review here. However, the coverage is batched together in a mass review of a number of other books on Tolkien, and there is only one paragraph discussing this particular book. The "review" in a forum post that the nom found is ineligible for notability, of course, so this short blurb alone is not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. A redirect to David Day (Canadian writer), as suggested, is also a possibility, but a quick look at his article makes me question if he, himself, would pass the WP:GNG, so I don't see that as wholly necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Please direct back to David Day. His credible sources are

    Hello,

    The wikipedia page for David Day, Canadian Writer has been redirected to "Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

     (Redirected from David Day (Canadian writer))"

    Please can you help restore to the original page and prevent this from happening again?

    This seems to be part of a continuing campaign on information for David Day. KingoftheWoods (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC) KingoftheWoods (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Replied at the help desk. Please dont ask the same question multiple times, it wastes everyone's time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I panicked as my page has disappeared to be redirected to a page published by by a fan club.

    Please can you help restore.

    To assist, I provide my credible sources again.


    Current Credible Publishers: Penguin Random House - https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/authors/2142156/david-day Quattro Books - http://quattrobooks.ca/authors/david-day/ Octopus - https://www.octopusbooks.co.uk/contributor/david-day/ Simon and Schuster: https://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/David-Day/141023395 https://www.simonandschuster.ca/search/books/Author-David-Day/Format-Trade-Paperback/Imprint-Thunder-Bay-Press/_/N-1z0zkteZi8xZ1z0zs0c/Ne-pgt?options[sort]=BOOK_ORDER%7C0%7C%7CTITLE%7C1

    Current Sales on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/David-Day/e/B00LX3YZCC%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share.

    These are not self published but my well known publishers and most have been published in up to 7 languages.

    Newspaper/Article Links New Scientist: https://books.google.ca/books?id=EIZI3TDTGTsC&pg=PA44&dq=doomsday+book+of+animal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0_Kb2s9frAhWlzlkKHThbB_MQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=doomsday%20book%20of%20animal&f=false BC Book World - https://abcbookworld.com/writer/day-david/ Quill and Quire - https://quillandquire.com/nevermore-a-book-of-hours/ Detroit Free Press - https://freep.newspapers.com/search/#query=David+Day+Tolkien+Encyclopedia https://latimes.newspapers.com/search/#query=david+day+tolkien+illustrated+encyclopedia

    TV Links Searching for the Hobbit - https://distribution.arte.tv/fiche/_A_LA_RECHERCHE_DU_HOBBIT_-_EPISODE_1


    University https://www.uvic.ca/alumni/impact/home/awards/distinguished/2015-DA-bios/index.php

    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Boundary (real estate). Consensus is for adding any necessary content to the Boundary article and redirecting to that article. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Line tree

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

    This would perhaps be better as a soft redirect to Wiktionary than an article here. It has some mentions as a term, but no notability. Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Boundary (real estate). This is too narrow of a topic for a single article (it's a tree that marks a boundary for goodness sake), but it is part of the more general concept of real estate boundaries and could be put in proper context there. That article itself is a bit thin and could use some beefing up, so it's a perfect match. There are also currently no secondary sources in this article, so even a merge would be inappropriate unless some were added. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Boundary (real estate) per Deacon Vorbis. As mentioned above, this is far to narrow of a topic to justify an article separate from the main article on the broad topic of real estate boundaries. The term comes up in sources here and there, but the results are little more than defining what it means. While I do agree that there is no real usable info currently in the article for a merge (the only sources are just examples of times the phrase was used in documents), we do need to actually add a line mentioning and defining it at the main Boundary (real estate) article, as it is not currently mentioned there. Rorshacma (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Boundary (real estate). I would agree that the need of a stand-alone article seems weak, but the current boundary article is really a stub and doesn't say anything about line trees or for that matter anything else about how said boundaries are determined, so just redirecting is not the way to go. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Documentary of OzBo

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

    Non notable, independent release with no known verifiable reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 07:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Coldwell Banker New Homes

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

    I fail to see what's notable about this company. The article doesn't cite any sources, nothing comes up about in a before that would pass WP:CORP, and it's not even mentioned in the Coldwell Banker. I'd be fine with merging it to their as an alternative to deletion. Except it would still have to be referenced and notable enough for it. So, deletion seems like the better option. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sébastien Flauss

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

    The footballer never played in a fully professional league thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article doesn't require deletion as he currently playing in top league of Luxembourg and has played upto UEFA qualifiers level in club competition.Isn't is certainly notable. SHISHIR DUA (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article doesn't require deletion as he currently playing in top league of Luxembourg and has played upto UEFA qualifiers level in club competition.Isn't is certainly notable. SHISHIR DUA (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Northern Link (MTR). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Au Tau station

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

    Extremely trivial article about a proposed train station that was never built. There's only a few references about it that all seem to be primary. I couldn't find anything else on it in a before that would pass WP:GNG either. I'd say this also qualifies as WP:TOSOON, but I don't think that works if the project was canceled. So, I'm basing this mainly on lack of notability.

    • Merge to Northern Link (MTR), the line it is/was to be on (which appears to be significantly delayed but not cancelled) from where it can easily be split out again if it is ever built. The same goes for the articles about the other proposed stations on this line. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Richa Negi

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

    Claim to fame is her dance clip went viral. Not notable. WP:GNG, No enduring notability WP:1E - Harsh (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Agro-

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

    This prefix disambiguation page is 100% WP:partial title matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Adventist Health Glendale

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

    Seemingly non-notable, small local hospital. There are sources out there about it and cited in the article, but they all seem to contain extremely trivial information like that they sponsored a local boy scouts group so they could wrap presents for Christmas. Which is cool of them to do, but doesn't make the hospital worthy of an article in Wikipedia. Adamant1 (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the LA Times, Armenian Weekly, CBC and others. The coverage is not all run of the mill as it includes in the history of the institution a serial killer episode, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure coverage for a single thing, a missionary trip which is extremely trivial IMO, by a few regional news sources really does it. Usually there has to at least be some national coverage due to the whole "broad audience" thing that Wikipedia is intended for and the place has to be notable for more then one event to. Otherwise, we are just acting as a news source. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty you don't know anything about the notability guidelines. It's fine to mention their mission work in the article, but them doing mission work on doesn't help to establish notability on it's own and I never claimed otherwise. Your free to add more information to the article, but if your going to use it as an impetus to vote keep it should follow WP:NCORP. Which judging by what I've seen of your edits so far you don't seem to care about following. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just about numbers. The question is are they the right kind of references and IMO they aren't. Others are free to disagree though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, do you happen to know where there was a discussion/agreement about the number of beds a hospital has and it's notability? A couple of people have said that hospitals over 500 beds are notable, but I can't find anything about it anywhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not aware of any policy like that, but my assumption is that big hospitals generally are notable, and 500 beds is a reasonable size. Rathfelder (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A large hospital in Glendale. >500 beds is the size of a typical teaching hospital so really quite big (Maybe ~20 wards), has a long history and there is a lot of coverage both under this new name and the old name. Beyond the ongoing coverage in the LA times, there is also some coverage in the national media (NYT etc) Seems to be lot of scope for expansion. PainProf (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    15th/Clark station

    edit
    15th/Clark station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is WP:TOO SOON and this station may not be built at all. Richton Shore (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete, outdated, and it's not even a CTA-backed proposal. Cards84664 05:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: This AfD was not properly transcluded, and should run for at least 7 days from this relist.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Military Reenactment Society

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

    It exists. Its main claim to notability seems to be that it has been consulted by TV/film companies, but there in not enough there to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Teddy Bear Sing Along

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

    No significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election. NPOL sets a standard that can seem a bit higher than GNG but that reflects the fact that campaigns are often the subject rather than the individual. Over the years, the community has supported the case that multiple unsuccessful candidates either have to win something or we cover them in the campaigns. Once all these arguments were aired and the article.relisted there was no disagreement with this argument. Spartaz Humbug! 21:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dylan Perceval-Maxwell

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

    WP:BLP, referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all, of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate for political office. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- but this article demonstrates neither that he had any preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacies, nor a credible reason why his candidacies could be considered more significant than other people's candidacies. And while there is a "this article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in French" tag at the top, the French article is just a very short stub with nothing to actually translate that isn't already here and citing no sources at all, which means it's deletion bait over there as well. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - achieves bare notability between some recent coverage of a controversial policy he proposed to combat racism, and significant WP:ABOUTSELF info that can be used to build the article into something more than just the campaign. I think a very narrow GNG pass is in effect here. NPOL is for politicians who fail to meet GNG, not some super extra special guideline that also has to be met. Even if that weren't the case, I don't care, because in that case it's clearly a rule detrimental to building the encyclopedia and should be ignored. People expect Wikipedia to contain information about political candidates. Wikipedia seeks to be the biggest repository of free information in the world, and people have come to rely on it; it's often hard to find info about candidates, and most people would reasonably expect candidates for office to have articles. He's also run for god knows how many elections, making him a perennial candidate which can in itself create notability in certain cases. This is also a pointy nomination (see here, CTRL+F "WP:WAX") and should be speedy closed for that reason alone. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 05:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOL is not "for politicians who fail to meet GNG". We don't always do a very good job of actually finding and using all the sources necessary to write a substantive article that looks like the person passes GNG, but that's not the same thing as the person actually failing GNG — NPOL-passing politicians always pass GNG, and we just aren't always on the ball about doing the work to make their articles good. That's a "lazy Wikipedians" problem, not a "the people don't pass GNG in the first place" problem.
    And a brief blip of coverage in the context of announcing a policy proposal during a leadership race just makes hima a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has attained permanent notability yet. We are WP:NOTNEWS: we consider the enduring notability of potential article topics, not just their temporary newsiness: our job here is to look past the daily news and sort out what information is still going to matter in 2030, not just to indiscriminately keep an article about everybody whose name happens to have shown up in the daily news cycle one day.
    And also, WP:WAX is not WP:POINT. There's nothing disruptive about responding to a WAX-based argument by listing the named WAX article for a deletion discussion — WAX literally says that that's one of the standard responses that people should expect to a WAX-based argument. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:GNG worse than most, as the only potentially qualifying coverage is the fact there was a documentary film made about one of his campaigns - the review of the film in the article focuses solely on the filmmaker, and not on Perceval-Maxwell. The rest of the article is his CV, a couple Facebook posts, routine election results, a National Post article about a Green Party debate, and a press release which doesn't even mention him. The French language article has zero references at all and is unhelpful. On top of WP:PROMO concerns related to the fact he's a current candidate, which was the reason why this article was created, this is a clear delete. I also want to address a point made above - there is no way at all this is a pointy nomination, as Bearcat generally does an excellent job at bringing articles that need AfD review to our attention and has for a long time. That accusation must be retracted. SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I will not retract it, because it is correct. In fact I will double down. Bearcat's crusade against politician articles is one of the worst things I've seen at AfD. He gleefully misuses policy, lawyers it to mean the opposite of what it plainly says, and bludgeons the process with his walls of text of randomly italicized words and meaningless blather. Wikipedia would be far better off if he were topic banned from AfD, or even desysopped or sitebanned entirely. I'm done here. I'm not going to waste my time on a failed encyclopedia run by deletionist zealots like him. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep and Topic Ban User:Bearcat from AFD nominations - It's a very pointy nomination, as it's clearly vengeance for another editor pointing out the nominator's lack of competence in the Annamie Paul AFD, and a quick WP:BEFORE shows lots of other articles relating to this environmentalist's similar activities, such as his hemp business, and his famous car that ran on discarded deep-fryer oil from fast-food restaurants (even I remember that one - and a good "Do you know" candidate). I've added several more references to the article, some routine, but some meet GNG, such as the 2005 Montreal Gazette article, the 2009 car articles, the 2008 piece on his hemp business (did User:SportingFlyer see these?) The nominator really should withdraw this nomination. This nomination meets the speedy keep criteria 2 (created for disruption). Though it's also clear that the mandatory BEFORE checks were not done. Nfitz (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Collapsing discussion between two editors that is not relevant to the article at hand
    Once again, responding to a WP:WAX argument by listing the WAX article for discussion is neither disruptive nor pointy — listing the WAX article for deletion is exactly the standard and expected response to a WAX argument.
    I also do not have any "lack of competence". If you would like to propose that we change the established consensus around non-notability of political candidates, that's one thing — but I am not incorrect about and do not misrepresent what the existing consensus is, and the sheer number of deletion discussions where I've voted to keep because I was able to salvage an article with better referencing than had been provided is also plain proof that I know what I'm doing when it comes to WP:BEFORE. Salvaging inadequately referenced articles is literally 75 per cent of the work I do on here at all, in fact — and kindly read WP:ATTP, which specifically states that "As well, be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found." Bearcat (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely disagree with everything you have said here. WAX hardly applies when it's overwhelming clear that the original nomination is heading towards a keep - and to suggest otherwise raised WP:CIR questions. If WP:BLP1E applied you might have a point ... but in both cases you've raised, the coverages goes back decades. And when it's shown to you that that is the case, instead of doing the honourable thing, and withdrawing the nomination, you dig deeper with spurious and irrelevant arguments, trying to twist WP:SNG and ignore the clear guidance in WP:N that A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article. I can understand you making mistakes, and misinterpreting things ... lord knows it's not all clear ... but to let your ego take over, and create disruptive nominations, and waste everyone's time is disgraceful, and I believe you should be topic banned from further AFD creation until you have time to reflect on this. Nfitz (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not withdrawing anything so long as you're speaking to me in that unacceptable tone — and it wouldn't matter whether I withdraw it or not anyway, because if you've salvaged the article enough for people's satisfaction, then they'll vote accordingly and it will be kept regardless of whether I withdraw it or not. This is, after all, exactly how AFD works: if articles get salvaged and improved enough to turn the tide on an AFD discussion, then that's a win for everybody, not a "competition" that I've "lost". If you start speaking to me civilly, then maybe I'll consider your position — but I have no obligation to obey the commands of anybody who's talking to me in this kind of blatantly uncivil and inappropriate manner. And allow me to point out as well that I have never, not once, attacked you in any of this. Bearcat (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking perfectly civilly - though if you think that your decisions should be based on how people speak to you, rather than the facts, then that raises even more quesions. There's no doubt that this was a pointy nomination - likely in retaliation for the same user doing a pointy AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9th Jutra Awards. The hypocrisy of complaining about that and then doing the same thing stuns me. Also ... who said that you attacked me - I didn't think you had? And what has rescuing the article got to do with it ... we don't decide to delete based on the quality of the article - AFD guidelines clearly say that one should improve the article if one can, rather than deleting. It is your failure to WP:BEFORE that is the prime issue here ... and then you seem to think that the rest of the discussion be some kind of transactional exchange - rather than failing to do the right thing, and withdrawing clearly faulty nominations. Stop wasting our time. Nfitz (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, you may think you're talking civilly, but the comment I was responding to was very angry and attacking and uncivil. And this article was created by a user named Fulserish, not by Cactus Jack, so I don't know why you think nominating this for discussion was retaliation against anything Cactus Jack did. I'm also going to remind you, once again, of what WP:ATTP says about accusing people of failing to do BEFORE: "Be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found." And finally, again, it doesn't matter whether I withdraw a nomination or not — if people are convinced that you've salvaged the article enough, then it will be kept regardless of anything I do or don't say, and if people aren't convinced that you've salvaged the article enough, then any withdrawal I make would almost certainly be followed by somebody else immediately initiating a renomination anyway. So not immediately complying with an order from you is not evidence that I'm "failing to do the right thing", or that I'm being "transactional" — it's evidence that I'm trying to respond calmly to a personal attack I didn't deserve. Bearcat (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies ... I thought it was Cacti Jack who had mentioned this article ... re-reading the discussion it was User:TimeEngineer ... however within minutes of their mentioning this article, you not only nominated this article for deletion, but (to me at least) seemed to gloat about it. It's hard to believe that in the intervening 16 minutes after their post, you had time to not only see their post, but to read it, do the AFD nomination for this article, and do a proper BEFORE. Which the amount of GNG material relating to him, that's not related to his candidacy, would have found. Nfitz (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the article as it stood at 06:30 and you updated it with a single new article afterwards, which isn't really significant coverage in my book as it was a late 2000s blog post. I do not think the mention that his car runs on cooking oil is enough to make him notable or is considered a separate "event" considering a quick search shows his notability stems mostly from a single documentary with one review or the fact he's standing to be the leader of the party, which is a candidacy. The claim for WP:GNG is exceptionally weak even for candidates, who we expect to receive WP:GNG and that's why we've carved out the exception. You also need to consider your response. A topic ban for Bearcat would be absolutely ridiculous. This was a very legitimate nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 08:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough - I'm not sure when you looked at it. There's three articles referencing the car ... and I certainly remember seeing reports about it, there was significant media coverage of him and the car at the time. There's significant coverage about his Hemp business. And there's significant national coverage about his candidacy for leadership a major federal party ... it's not like he's running for Senator in Red Neck, East Dakota, and just retired as a schoolteacher with no profile. My gosh ... if we applied this depth of GNG to sportsplayers, they'd be about five per league. Nfitz (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Meets GNG with sources, some of which are in French. His candidacies are essentially beside the point, there's enough here for an article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. His political activity, while a noble endeavor, does not meet the guidelines for notability Wikipedia:Politician. The fact that there are newspaper articles that cover his candidacy is irrelevant to the criteria that running for elected office in of itself is not notable. While there is a documentary, the subject of that is the campaign which would warrant either special detail in the article about that election OR the documentary itself. The articles covering his activism do not have him as the subject. Rather he is simply "one of the proponents," of biodiesel. He might meet some notability as an inventor if he actually invented the original systems, but I could not find anything to that effect.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Someone should mark the French article for deletion too if this article is going to be marked. Just thought I should point that out, since there's no point in only removing it on one wiki and leaving it on another. Fulserish (talk) 3:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:BLP1E and redirect to 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election - the only thing he has ever done that meets any of our inclusion criteria (and that just barely, media have hardly covered it) was to be expelled from the Green Party leadership contest over racist remarks, and it's inappropriate to center a BLP around such an incident (it's already described in as much detail as is necessary at the election page). The rest of this is the biography of a perennial candidate who hasn't ever really even come close to winning an election, and a generic "businessman" wiki-resume otherwise. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Hopefully, relisting this discussion will allow time for additional analysis and comments about the article itself, without further ad hominem attacks against either the nominator or the participants.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on User:Bkissin, given that much of the significant in-depth coverage is from the decade before last - how can you say they won't past the ten-year test? And why does NPOL matter when they pass GNG? Nfitz (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jio#Jio apps. No consensus to Keep, and a rough consensus to Redirect as an ATD. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    JioMeet

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

    Not notable. After it was moved to draft space by another user, the author blanked the draft and recreated the article, so while I normally would move this to draft space to allow it to develop further, not sure that would be productive here. DannyS712 (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:NSOFT. DMySon 13:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect: to Jio#Jio_apps. It doesn't pass WP:NSOFT, not because there is no reliable and significant coverage ([28], [29], [30], [31], [32] - these could qualify as reliable and significant), but because Notability is not temporary. Similarly, a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable.. All coverage is around the same date i.e date of the app's announcement. - Harsh 19:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 20:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's up to the closing admin (or non-admin) to take into consideration. In the meantime, here is more: Zoom considering legal action against Jio], another one on Zoom and JioMeet, this time detailing the latter's downloads and an Op-Ed that looks at the comption here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, @Rsrikanth05:, are you just pasting reference links from the article? Your second link is dead. Anyway, I went through the sources and I don't think there is any convincing coverage that is not just from the announcement or something. @Rsrikanth05: why do you mention it has received praise? That is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it is great or not, why do you think that would matter? The only thing that matters is the coverage and if there a sufficient amount. Why do you mention that it was praised by a movement initiated by Modi? That is such an indirect appeal to authority! --Ysangkok (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The link isn't dead. I forgot to put a space between the link and 2. It's very much a live one. Why is it relevant? By that line of reasoning, 80% of Wikipedia articles would be up for deletion because a bulk of the coverage rests on it being given 'significant' coverage. Indirect appeal to authority? That's very silly. Also, no need to ping me twice in the same message. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I most *certainly did not* paste links from the article. I'm not as unaware of policies as you seem to be insinuating. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that this subject has received a fair amount of coverage and meets notability guidelines. However, expansion and organization of the article may be necessary. (non-admin closure) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Team conflict

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

    Obvious NOR/SYNTH violation is obvious, and the article's carried tags for the same for over ten years. Ravenswing 00:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Strap-Ons

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

    NN garage band, unsourced for over ten years, no evidence this meets either the GNG or WP:BAND. Ravenswing 00:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 01:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 01:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_July_10&oldid=968564870"