Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 October	15 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Jensen (musician)[edit]

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

This article was previously soft deleted, with my nominating rationale as Best as I can tell, this bio fails WP:MUSICBIO. No charting albums or songs, no major music awards (only a minor regional award), and only routine press coverage. It was recently undeleted by request of an editor claiming to be the subject of the article, whose only other edits were getting themselves blocked for personal attacks. Based on that, I am renominating for deletion (on the same grounds of lack of notability) in hopes of more participation in the discussion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: MUSICBIO has a fairly high bar to clear. This subject does not clear it, however much he may yearn to have a Wikipedia article. Ravenswing 01:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the actual criteria for establishing a musician as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Artist meets multiple criteria set forth in the guidelines for Music Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.153.140 (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— 72.74.153.140 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IrishDynamo9. Cabayi (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And which ones would you claim he does? He certainly doesn't meet #1. He has never had a song or album hit a national chart. He has never had a gold record. He has never had reliable coverage of any international tour. He's just released two albums, period, never mind multiple albums on a major label. He has never been in a band with multiple notable musicians. He has never won a Grammy or other major music award. Etc etc etc. 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 23:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Setting aside the possible COI editing (including a handful of anonymous IP editors who haven't edited any other articles), this artiste does not meet a single one of the criteria listed at WP:NMUSICIAN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, fails WP:GNG --Devokewater (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pass WP:COMPOSER pass WP:MUSICBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmileyGerald8 (talk • contribs) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Java Hurricane 04:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I believe SmileyGerald8 is a sock of IrishDynamo9, and have requested a CU at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IrishDynamo9. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I do not wear socks or play with puppets — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmileyGerald8 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Java Hurricane 04:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Certainly not notable per WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. Java Hurricane 04:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that most of the cited coverage is actually for Mission Hill, of which the subject is a part. WP:INHERITED says that doesn't make the subject notable. However, the Billboard article seems focused on the subject. Does that aid WP:GNG claim? — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harshita Tiwary[edit]

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

No indication of notability. She is not mentioned in any of the sources that are in the article. I cannot find significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. (56 Google results on search of her name.) ... discospinster _talk 22:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 22:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 22:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL - up and coming model and actress with a very short resume. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The several External Links which were added in response to the BLPPROD are poor - more about a series in which she appeared that the subject herself, and some don't even mention her in lists of actors associated with the show. IMDb credits the subject as appearing in one episode. Searches find no evidence of attained notability. (And the photo, uploaded as "own work" by the article creator, is a posed shot also on IMDb.) AllyD (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls short of the multiple significant roles in notable productions which is the threshold for actress notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AllyD. Less Unless (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree it fails GNG Elinruby (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draftify Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. However, as I do for all living, young people, I'd recommend draftification instead of deletion. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ST47 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Bland[edit]

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

No indication of notability for this fictional character. ... discospinster _talk 22:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are some references in academic sources, but I don't have access at the moment to see if these are more than passing refences, e.g.
- “Cognition, Character and Corpus Stylistics.” Corpus Stylistics: Theory and Practice, by Dan McIntyre and Brian Walker, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2019, pp. 181–207. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctvggx49p.12. Accessed 15 Oct. 2020. (Quote: "we might observe an aptronymic element to the surname Bland")
- ALLEN, BROOKE. “Playing with Archetypes.” The Hudson Review, vol. 65, no. 1, 2012, pp. 108–114. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23241332. Accessed 15 Oct. 2020.
- “Codes: SELF-EVIDENT MEANING IN NARRATIVES OF INTRIGUE.” Intrigue: Espionage and Culture, by ALLAN HEPBURN, Yale University Press, NEW HAVEN; LONDON, 2005, pp. 49–78. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npcxq.7. Accessed 15 Oct. 2020. (Quote: "Even minor characters in this series have a smell of the library about them: Roy Bland , in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy...)

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION. I tried to check the sources above, but I can't get access to them, and in fact I can only confirm that the subject's name appears in the second one - and the snippet suggest it is just a passing mention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless the above are shown to be sufficient, this fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artwiz fonts[edit]

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

This ain't a subject I'm too familiar with, but this doesn't look to pass WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Of the three references in the article, one is an interview with the developer of the font, and the other two look a little iffy. Mostly just finding forums, blogs, and places to get the code for these. Given that it's been in CAT:NN since 2010, this deserves a hearing on notability. I don't think it's notable, based on the coverage I can find, but I'm admittedly a non-expert in this area. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lawson (soccer)[edit]

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

Looks to fail WP:NFOOTY, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. Like the article says, his MLS career resulted in no games played, per [1], and the tier of German soccer he played in falls below the bar given at WP:FPL (league played in not a fully professional league). All the coverage I can find is two sentences here, which states that he's out of soccer and is a systems engineer. This is paywalled, but may be something. Beyond that, that's about it. Notability tagged since 2010, so time to get a hearing on this fellow. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our liberal WP:NFOOTY guidelines and doesn't appear to have any WP:GNG-qualifying coverage. If there's a list of D.C. United players and he's mentioned there, we can redirect, as he does appear on the club's all time register. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing available to suggest that he can pass GNG Spiderone 21:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom that WP:NFOOTBALL is not met. There is also no sign that the subject meets WP:BASIC, as there is little coverage on him. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 11:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete This fails both NFOOTBALL and the GNG. Plus, at this point I don't see it going any other way then delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:GNG. --Devokewater (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro soccer player which isn't the subject of significant coverage (all online English- and German-language coverage is routine). Jogurney (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ST47 (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Appleyard[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT The sources in the article are either unreliable, mentions in passing, broken (and unobtainable from the Way Back Machine) or promotional in nature. The ESPN interview could be used to show notability, and I found a short profile of him from the Toronto Star on Jan. 1, 2003 in a ProQuest database but I can't find the article on TS's website (ProQuest's links reveal the library's location and I don't want to out myself). However, these two sources are not enough significant coverage to determine notability. I searched Google, JSTOR, NYT and Gale for but did not find usable sources there. Z1720 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a requirement that our sources be web-published at all — we are allowed to cite print-only sources, such as archival news reporting retrieved from microfilm, clippings or locked research databases, without hotlinking them anywhere. But conversely, we can't stake notability on Q&A interviews where the person is speaking about themselves in the first person — we can use Q&A interviews sparingly for verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by third-party coverage, but interviews don't directly count as bringers of the GNG if they are the best sources he's got. But you are right that either way, two sources isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the above comment, I realise I was not clear enough in my delete rationale. For the Toronto Star article, I was not trying to insinuate that we can't use the article because it's a print newspaper. Instead, I was describing where I found the article so others could find it themselves and access it to make their own judgements (and I didn't want to post a direct link because the URL reveals which city's library I used to find the article). In my analysis of the Toronto Star source, it is a short bio of Appleyard that doesn't establish notability. I am sorry for the confusion. Please ping me if there are any questions. Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article depends far, far too strongly on primary sources, such as user-generated YouTube videos and "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of companies he has direct endorsement deals with, and features almost no evidence of substantive coverage in reliable sources — even the very few sources that are technically from real media are just blurbs, Q&As where he's talking about himself in the first person or glancing namechecks of his existence within coverage of other things, not genuinely substantive coverage about him — yet the article also claims nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough under our inclusion standards for sportspeople to exempt him from having to have significantly better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ST47 (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Chalmers[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article constitutes a strongly "inherent" notability claim in the absence of considerably more reliable source coverage than the article is actually citing. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat Can you elaborate? Not questioning, just trying to understand your comment and the concept of "inherent" notability as a relatively new user. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain notability claims that we consider so important that as long as they're verifiably accurate, an article has to be allowed to exist regardless of its current state of sourcing: a politician winning election to the national legislature; a person in any field of endeavour winning a top level award in their field (such as actors or actresses winning Oscars or Emmys or Tonys, musicians winning Grammys, etc.); an athlete making it to the Olympics or getting drafted into the top professional league for their sport; and on and so forth. Basically, an inherent notability claim is an achievement that's so significant and important that as long as it can be properly verified as true, it essentially clinches the person's notability right on its face — so if a person has one of those, we keep the article even if the sources in it aren't great, and just flag it for reference improvement because the likelihood of there being other solid sources that we just haven't found or used yet is very high. But there are also many notability claims that aren't considered automatic notability guarantees, where instead their notability depends much more strongly on the quality of the sources they do or don't have to support an article with — basically, if their notability claim boils down to having done their job (a musician, writer, actor or filmmaker claiming notability because their work exists rather than because of any noteworthy awards or distinctions, etc.), then they have to have much more solid sourcing to get in the door in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat and nom. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Ford (businessman)[edit]

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

I don't think this fellow, who's been notability tagged since 2010, meets the relevant notability guidlines. The referencing in the article is either unreliable, primary sourcing, or doesn't mention him. I wouldn't call this significant coverage. Other coverage is largely passing mentions, or is in self-published or otherwise unreliable genealogical sites. He can't inherit notability from his very notable son Henry Ford. I'm not seeing any indication that the subject passes WP:GNG or any of the applicable SNGs, including WP:ANYBIO. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete William Ford was not notable. Just because his son Henry Ford became notable, does not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable because of his son. Spleodrach (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. and above, he is not notable because of his son. Alex-h (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Henry Ford#Early life) per nom. WP:NOTINHERETED. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INHERITED — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 15:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders who never lost a battle[edit]

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

I don't think the existence of this article can be justified, mostly because there is hardly such a thing as 'commanders who never lost a battle'; it is hardly, if at all, ever possible to determine that a commander in fact never lost a single battle. This goes especially for pre-modern commanders, who make up the vast majority of the list, since sources about them are scarce and not all their battles have been recorded. It doesn't seem neutral then to claim that they have never lost a battle. On top of that, the article hardly has any sources backing any of those claims; and as I stated before, in most cases it won't be possible to find the sources necessary to justify them. Therefore, it seems to me that the solution would be to delete the article rather than try to improve it. Also, only 4 other Wikipedia articles link to this one, which I think also says something about its relevance. Lennart97 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely unreferenced and has had multiple issues for years.Mztourist (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many of the earlier commanders are unsourced, unverifiable or downright laughable (King Tut, according to his article, probably wasn't even there for the whole two victories credited to him). Maybe a list encompassing the last couple of centuries could be compiled, but this one is useless. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the multiple issues already detailed above Spiderone 08:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Per nom., I don't know how we can verify this list. Also there are many names on this list without any references. Alex-h (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very unverifiable and unsourced. This is a very rare subject, and there isn't significant coverage of it. Koridas 📣 22:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Evidently a WP:POINT nom (and several POINT !votes), but there has been a discussion with arguments on both sides, so speedy keep due to withdrawal is not possible. We appear to have several WP:SPAs here, I'll remind them that this is a debate, not a vote.

We have no policy that states that unelected candidates for public office are not notable. I don't see any attempt to refute the arguments that James is notable under the GNG, so our consensus is to keep per the GNG. ST47 (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John E. James[edit]

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

If Theresa Greenfield isn't considered notable, then John James shouldn't be either. WP:NPOL needs to be applied equally, and James does not meet WP:GNG. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 20:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Withdrawing my nomination, now that consensus has been reached on Theresa Greenfield. I personally feel that both candidates are notable enough to warrant inclusion, and my initial concern was one of fairness and consistency, which has now been addressed. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 23:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I don't see an issue with OP's reasoning here, and so far as prior notability is concerned, we don't give every 40 under 40 in a state a notability pass. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 21:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both are in fact notable. I'll be voting against James in a few weeks, but there is massive coverage of him. Far, far over the WP:N bar. There are things like [2] which cover his previous work as a president of a large(ish) company. Places like the Jewish News have interviewed him. Politico has significant coverage in the last day [3]. There is coverage in the Washington Post, NYT, WSJ, and probably every other major news source in the US and plenty outside of it. Hobit (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My preference is to redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Michigan as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for U.S. Senate. My hesitation in commenting is that a) the subject was also the Republican nominee for the same office in 2018 so there is no obvious redirect target and 2) we are now less than three weeks to the election. At this point, there is value in holding off on closing the discussion until we know if the subject will be notable based upon the results. --Enos733 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination smells of "revenge"—if Theresa Greenfield can't have an article, then he shouldn't either! I strongly believe both are notable, as evidenced by an abundance of significant coverage. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The motivation behind opening this AfD does not change the fact that this article is not notable per WP:NPOL. We need to apply policy consistently. Transcendence (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Transcendence: Your delete vote ~~and subsequent WP:BADGERing~~ reeks of the same failure the nominator made. Unfortunately for your position, Theresa Greenfield has been determined to be notable, so I suggest you withdraw your comments and reassess your understanding of WP:GNG. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Tavix: I suggest you read WP:BADGER again before you make baseless accusations that "reek" of incivility. Not only did I restrict all but one of my responses to open questions, I did not reply to the vast majority of comments that disagreed with me. I only replied to your comment because it is a blatant appeal to emotion rather than policy. Attempting to label my responses here as WP:BADGERing is beyond the pale. Not only that, the language you choose to use is "reeks of the same failure the nominator made", "Unfortunately for your position", "reassess your understanding". My response to you was quite professional. Yours however violates many of WP:CIVIL: "Try not to get too intense.", "Be professional", "Avoid name-calling", "Avoid condescension.", "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment." You're an admin. Do better. Transcendence (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Rather, the first sentence of my vote was a direct response to the WP:POINTy nomination statement that ran afoul of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. The second sentence, and really the only important one, was a direct appeal to the language of WP:GNG, which is the relevant guideline (notability is governed by guidelines, not policy) per the last bit of WP:NPOL. In your replies to me, you seem to latch on to unimportant parts of my comments, so in an effort of goodwill, I have retracted that particular phrase. What is important is that your tit-for-tat deletion stance no longer holds any water because Theresa Greenfield has been deemed notable. Since you mention that you wish to be consistent with Greenfield, it would now only be consistent for you to withdraw your vote. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Withdrawing my vote for an AfD that is already withdrawn doesn't seem to have any point. Transcendence (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The nominator withdrew their opinion—the AfD itself is still open. The AfD cannot be withdrawn while there are still outstanding delete votes. See WP:WITHDRAW for more details. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        That section is labeled "Early closure" so it doesn't apply anymore. This AfD has already been open for more than 168 hours. Quite frankly, I don't know why someone doesn't already just close this AfD as Keep. Transcendence (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for public office are not notable. If James wins the election, then he will be notable, not before. I do have to say though that the reasoning is false. The coverage on Mr. James is about Mr. James and not impacted by whether we have significant enough coverage on other candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You state that as if we have a policy or guideline that makes it clear that "unelected candidates for public office are not notable". Could you clarify where that is documented or if this is simply how you think it should work? Hobit (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policy is WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." James is not notable under WP:GNG, only for his candidacies. Transcendence (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates for senate either are, or are not notable, tertium non datur. There is no standard that would justify deleting Greenfield's page and keeping James'. Tkjanacek (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has been here for several months, possibly years I haven't checked. No reason to delete this just weeks before the election. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the last poster noted, there is no reason to delete the article now. Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC) — Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep for now, If the article of a major party nominee is removed just before the election, a credible case could be made for election interference, and Wikipedia could be seen as giving a donation in kind to James opponent, which is not a good idea of Wikipedia wants to keep its non profit status

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcewenjr (talk • contribs) 14:32, October 18, 2020 (UTC)

Keep there are sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 16:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's only really notable for being an unelected candidate, which goes against our policies. We can always restore the page if he wins, keeping it because the election is apparently close violates our notability principles. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which policy? There is no applicable policy AFAICT. There are applicable guidelines, but I don't think any of them say that either. Could you clarify what you are referring to? Hobit (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Candidates who are only covered in the scope of their elections are often deleted by failing a number of different notability grounds. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here because he ran in a couple elections, but there are also WP:NOTNEWS (on the grounds that you can't make yourself notable) and WP:10YT concerns which are typically argued for most candidates, and WP:PROMO and WP:CRYSTAL concerns for candidates who are running but who might not be notable after the election as applies here. If this doesn't get deleted, I guess it can be revisited in a few years if he doesn't do anything else notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand the pretense, however the OP's intentions call foul to me here. I concur with Tavix that it isn't built on solid ground, it's more "an eye for an eye" than any preexisting Wikipedia policy. As such, I cannot vote to "Delete" on this specific proposal, possibly on a succeeding one. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point is that there is no on-point policy or guidelines that says what you say. At best it is an interpretation of policy. That's not at all what you made it sound like. Hobit (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right there's not anything directly "on point", but I am arguing the traditional custom of how these sorts of AfDs tend to play out (which is based in the policies I mentioned above, especially once these sorts of elections finish). SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policy is WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." James is not notable under WP:GNG, only for his candidacies.Transcendence (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - What part of the GNG is not met? I'd like a quote that applies if you could, because it doesn't say anything about that as far as I can see. Hobit (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until the election in 14 days. Durindaljb (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Michigan. The page can easily be restored if he wins. KidAd talk 23:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As another editor pointed out, James previously ran in 2018 for the Senate, so I don't believe we're be able to do that. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Y'all deleted the article for Theresa Greenfield per WP:NPOL because she is not notable for anything besides being a candidate. Well the exact same thing applies here so please be consistent. He clearly is not notable for anything other than his candidacy as the vast majority of the coverage is for his candidacies. He is simply not notable under WP:GNG. As such, it falls to WP:NPOL and it is clear that we delete articles for unelected candidates because they are not notable under WP:NPOL. Transcendence (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, very few of the contributors here were involved in Greenfield's article deletion and as such we have no idea how'd they would've voted on that discussion, so there's no need to "be consistent" when making our decisions here. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination seems obviously POINT-y, though I do agree with the point. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: a relevant discussion is happening at WP:AN#Towards_closure. I'll also link that discussion here. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the notability of press coverage, it should be mentioned that the majority of references used are from local news sources. Beyond that, his national press coverage is relatively minor, with some of the articles only mentioning James in passing.Big chumshot (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bambina Arbogast[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character, only mentions of her are on various wikis and lists but nothing substantive in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft better off in Tony Stark-related page but certainly not worthy of an individual article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a minor background character, nothing comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Couple[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM; unreleased, referenced with a few promo links, no significant coverage online in WP:RS. Moved to draft for improvement several times, and recreated with identical poor references each time. Captain Calm (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. The author seems to be on a spree crating articles of films/TV shows to be hosted by Zee. a possible WP:COI ChunnuBhai (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFILM. This article is simply WP:TOOSOON; I have no prejudice against it being recreated iff notability is later firmly established to the point of satisfying WP:NFILM. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another upcoming film with lack of references to justify an article at this stage Spiderone 17:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teezio[edit]

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

Notability is lacking as there are zero reliable sources able to be found regarding this individual (after a WP:BASIC search). The article is clearly promotional and written by a friend of his (in violation of WP:COI/WP:DISCLOSE). I tried to advise them this article would not work for this encyclopedia with the lack of notability, and put the article up for PROD, but they removed that so now we're here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls far short of our notability guidelines. I was going to nominate this myself tonight and was keeping an eye on it, but Coffee beat me to it. Along the same lines as the prod removal, I removed puffery earlier today and it was also reinstated without explanation. —TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC and basically any other notability check as there are no secondary sources where the subject is the main topic. All the sources provided are Youtube videos and producer directories. I couldn't find a single reliable source that would warrant this person an article on Wikipedia. --MewMeowth (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't meet WP:GNG. I don't think sound engineers are covered by WP:NMUSIC – maybe WP:CREATIVE? In any case, it is very clear that there is no notability here; being associated with a notable person does not make that person's notability rub off, and the same thing applies to being part of the crew for a charting song. The song might be notable per WP:NMUSIC but all people who worked on it, other than the artist, don't autumatically become notable. --bonadea contributions talk 21:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unable to find sources, other than social media platforms, that show notability. Does not meet WP:GNG and fails WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally put this up for g12 speedy, since it was a copyvio. That had been removed, but I was watching it for a day or two, and like SandDoctor, was going to nominate this myself. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article asserts that he was nominated for both a Grammy and a Latin Grammy, and if true, they would definitely meet meet MUSICBIO, but the claims in the article are uncited (well, one is cited, but the reference does not support the assertion), and I can find no record him at either the Grammy or Latin Grammy database.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No better sourcing found. Article creator isn't helping his cause by being disruptive elsewhere. --Finngall ^talk 15:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG --Devokewater (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Highschool Football League[edit]

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

No evidence of being able to meet WP:GNG; we don't generally have stand-alone season articles for football competitions between secondary schools in any case.

Also nominating:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both back to Highschool Football League. Giant Snowman 21:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable to have this league per season. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Not even sure the Highschool Football League itself is notable. "secondary school soccer in Taiwan". Nigej (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I haven't checked all of the Chinese sources for the league as a whole yet so I have left it. Highly unlikely to be notable, though. Spiderone 10:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update - it looks like there are some sources available to support Highschool Football League as a whole. When it comes to listings of results, however, I couldn't find a single source and, since the links in this article are all permanent dead links and some of the results haven't even been added yet (in spite of the matches taking place 13 years ago), I would still recommend redirect or delete. We should not host statistics-only articles where the statistics themselves are impossible to verify. Spiderone 21:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari F80 Concept[edit]

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

Non existant car, not approved by a manufacturer. Not notable article. Thesis for independent study. YBSOne (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quote from the creator's website: "All logos and brand names were originally included as part of the Independent Study class requirement to choose a brand, project brief, inspiration, hypothetical buyer and for student portfolio use. Thesis projects were designed under no sponsorship, partnership or affiliation with any brand. All logos and brand names are owned by their respective owners." YBSOne (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very little notability; sources include Top Gear, Drive Tribe and Autowise. The coverage is not enough for WP:GNG. Spiderone 21:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - just a design project, not a "real" concept car. If the designer became notable enough for his own page it could be mentioned there but I definitely don't see enough coverage to warrant an article. A7V2 (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; even the article says it's not a real Ferrari... Nightfury 12:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 12:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In all fairness a concept car does not have to be acknowledged by a manufacturer, even though usually made by an established designer or a coachbuilder (ex Stola S81 Stratos, Zagato 599 GTZ Nibbio, Touring Berlinetta Lusso). But issue here is that it is 'only' a thesis hade by a student in a model or rendering form. YBSOne (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even remotely notable, as it appears to be nothing more than artwork for a non-existent vehicle. --Sable232 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haornas Cup[edit]

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

An under-15 football tournament with little to no coverage in Indonesian media. Fails WP:GNG. These are the sources available

[4] - broken link
[5] - a blog
[6] - passing mention

Google News does bring up some results about various futsal tournaments but these appear to be unrelated. Spiderone 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage, no indication of notability. Giant Snowman 21:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taichung World Youth Football Festival[edit]

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

Zero hits on Google News. Highly unlikely to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - here is the Taiwan FA website and, from there, there is this. I can't find anything for subsequent years so this was possibly a one-off event. Spiderone 21:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage, no indication of notability. Giant Snowman 21:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notwithstanding the grand name, it seems to have been basically a domestic junior tournament in Taiwan. Nigej (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus appears to be to delete, as there is not enough material in the source article to merge. MTATransitFan, if you would like to try to merge, feel free to ask me or any admin for a copy of the article to be placed in your userspace. ST47 (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NYU Transportation[edit]

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

As like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnard Public Safety Shuttle, Does not meet WP:GNG. Only primary and/or non-RS sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another non-notable university transportation service. The source linked above is an informational page from NYU about the service, which does not contribute to notability, and there do not appear to be other sources available. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge.@AleatoryPonderings: and @Onel5969:: Could a section in NYU work?Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 16:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MTATransitFan, Well, at present there is only one (unreferenced) sentence of prose in the article, so a section in New York University does not seem warranted. I'm not opposed to a merger in principle. Also, you have now !voted twice, so you should strike one or the other of your !votes. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MTATransitFan: - please do not vote twice - are you voting to keep or merge the article? Nightfury 17:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nightfury: Merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTATransitFan (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. Consensus is to delete, if you believe that sources exist to satisfy WP:GNG, you need to present those sources, not just mention the results of a Google search. ST47 (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Considered[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as a WP:GNG concern for over 10 years now with no improvements made. Ignoring the fact that the article is blatantly promotional, there do not seem to be many reliable secondary sources available about this product.

[7] - painfully brief
[8] - quite in-depth but might be promotional/not independent
[9] - again, doesn't appear to be independent
[10] - probably independent, not sure if reliable source

I couldn't find anything better in a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone 17:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a brand/type of shoe. Also doing a quick google search on "Nike Considered" brings up articles created anywhere from 2008-2020. If people are still writing about/mentioning it, I see that as notable. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable third-party coverage, only sneakerhead/fashion blogs and non-notable sites. The most substantial press for this brand was from way back in 2008, then it drops off a cliff. The article itself is blatantly written like an advertisement to compensate for its near-nonexistent sourcing that includes Nike's official website. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon Ohio Fifth Third Bank Robbery[edit]

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

Prod contested with no reasoning. PROD rationale was "Seems to be an event that never got more than local coverage and doesn't meet WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG. Relatively minor robbery without indication of lasting significance. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {Creator}. It was a minor robbery, but from the information I found, the police still haven't caught the robber and the area doesn't see bank robberies often (Last one being 2016). Elijahandskip (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This event is unlikely to have any enduring notability. - Eureka Lott 17:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while such incidents may not be especially common in this particular place, there's nothing unusual about this event. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No more notable than any other bank robbery, and Wikipedia is not a police blotter. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This might break the news threshold of the local rag, but I fail to see any wider notability. Delete; add back if the perp turns out to be Gov. DeWine or someone else notable enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ST47 (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020 Beirut explosion[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Minimal coverage. MB 17:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MB 17:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. MB 17:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the explosion did have articles from at least 3 international news outlets. Needs expansion but the explosion itself is notable for an article. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Pokelova (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are, unfortunately, many accidental explosions around the world every year: while this one caused fatalities, it's unlikely to have enduring notability. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - There is absolutely no lasting impact foreseeable for this topic. Mentions in news outlets right after the incident is not enough to establish proof of this lasting impact. -- Veggies (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOTNEWS, and doesn't meet WP:EVENT ie. no lasting major consequences/significant persistent coverage. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*KeepThe explosion in Beirut was an event with international repercussions. The event has significant coverage from multiple secondary and reliable sources. The article needs to be expanded, not deleted. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this minor, forgettable incident has "international repercussions". -- Veggies (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @A.WagnerC, are you confusing this and the August 2020 Beirut explosion? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom Kaos and Veggies: Yes. It's Wikinews. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ~~Pokelova~~ Elijahandskip (edit GPinkerton (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)). GPinkerton (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelova !voted to delete. -- Veggies (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Veggies: Thanks, fixed. GPinkerton (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Not enough data at the moment about said event, so creating a brand new article using said data would not be necessary. While merging into August 2020 explosion page at first seems to be a solution, we currently have no evidence that both were linked. Either a delete or a condensed merge would work, although I am still unsure. -- Mr. Lechkar (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. WP:NOTNEWS and very few coverage. Rulforth (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nominator. Tragic but not encyclopedically notable. The event is akin to countless domestic gas leak explosions that happen all the time all over the world. Virtually no chance of enduring coverage. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mizuno Morelia[edit]

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

I do not believe that this passes WP:GNG. Most sources about it are either promo pieces [11] [12] or being listed among several other boots in recommended buys [13] [14]. I'm not seeing significant coverage in sources that could be considered reliable. I also have an issue with 'famous wearers' and propose that, if this article is kept, then we delete that part. It will be almost impossible to reliably source. Spiderone 17:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we do not need an article for every type of football boot, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ST47 (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah's Bay plantation[edit]

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

Non-notable property. This article was forked in 2007 from History of the British Virgin Islands. The content was unsourced there, and remains unsourced. I can only find wikipedia mirrors and brief mentions on tourism sites that mention this property. Checking g'books, jstor, proquest, newspapers.com, and general web search, I cannot find reliable sources to support its history or the story of its renovation. Schazjmd (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm having no luck at all finding anything substantial which can be shown to be independent of this article. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Sedale Threatt#Personal life. Sandstein 17:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sedale Threatt Jr. (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was AfD'd back in 2018, and still only has one significant role. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I made the article mostly because I was annoyed that people kept linking to Sedale Threatt Jr. (basketball). It looks like he is about to get some more recognition. He was cast in the leading role of a Chucky Mullins biopic. Voicebox64 (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people who "look like" they are "about to get some recognition" are by very definition not yet notable, and we do not create articles on people who are not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: he doesn't yet pass the criteria listed at WP:NACTOR. If the biopic becomes notables there may be an argument for re-creating this page, but at the moment it looks like a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sedale Threatt, where he already has a mention. Can be recreated if more articles are written about him. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ST47 (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pesa Nasha Pyar[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable Salimfadhley (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Was eligible for speedy deletion (G5, LaurelWest). MER-C 14:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Mills[edit]

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

Non-notable business person, only has mill coverage and paid for PR pieces. Praxidicae (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject seems to lack the level of in-depth, independent coverage needed to meet WP:BIO. Many of the sources only mention the subject in non-notable lists, are standard PR-pieces, or are WP:PRIMARY. In addition, searching for the subject online turns up little information about the subject themselves in WP:RS; the vast majority of the sources found are primarily concerned with companies/projects Mills is affiliated with, an issue given notability is not inherited. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Hakimi[edit]

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

non-notable actor who's primary claim to fame is being the child of a notable person. Praxidicae (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's no evidence that he passes the criteria set out at WP:NACTOR. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs more sourcing for a freelance filmmaker. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ST47 (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le Temps d'un film[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. All I found were film database sites and other wikis/blogs. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete. I found some coverage ([15], [16], [17]), but I don't think it's quite enough to build an article around. ~~I may see if I can pull together an article on the director (see her page on frwiki), who seems notable,~~ but I don't think this film quite passes notability muster. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck the bit above because I couldn't really find substantial sourcing on the director either. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there are elements that are frequently found in notable companies - such as the number of employees - there is a consensus that the sourcing found to date does not satisfy WP:NCORP and so this company is not notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RDS (group of companies)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Civil engineering company. Generic. scope_creep^Talk 00:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the biggest road construction company in Ukraine, which is basic for the road industry. It works since 2005, so no sign of "startup" period. Ukrainian sources are more than good and meet WP:CORPDEPTH. However, they are not in English :( That is the problem with Ukraine-related topics on wikipedia. BTW, I've corrected some minor mistakes. It looks more neat now --Mulage9 (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I figured a UPE or a SPA would turn up, The fact it is biggest doesn't mean the article doesn't have satisfy policy. I'm sure the company will survive quite well without a Wikipedia article. I will go through the references and show why they are terrible and don't meet WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk

Excuse me, but how is the discussion whether the company will survive or not without a page connected to the AfD process? --Mulage9 (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page should be rewritten and expanded with important details. It will also be good to shorten some non-important paragraphs. I will try to handle it this week. To be fair, the company barely meets WP:ORG, but it has good chances to survive community check. --Synhuliak (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above account is WP:SPA who has made few edit to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 19:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets have a look at the refs.

[18] RDS co-owner Yuriy Shumakher: We are carrying out rebranding to expand presence in Ukraine and enter European market Exclusive interview with Yuriy Shumakher. Its dependent coverage. Fails WP:SIRS.
[19] The Ukrainian company RDS has won a tender for the construction of the Kropyvnytsky - Kryvyi Rih - Zaporozhye highway Routine announcement. standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
[20] RDS Group to repair, build roads in Kherson region Routine announcement. Its press-release.
[21] Ukrainian group of companies RDS bought an asphalt concrete plant and invested in a production base Not independent. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as routine announcement.

* [22] n full swing of the government's big construction program, the RDS road construction group is proposing to hire 850 workers, 70% more than planned. The company is building roads in eight regions. RDS co-owner Yuri Shumakher says: “The construction industry is not in quarantine! And we want to provide jobs to those who need it the most. This is passing mention.

All the rest of the references are similar. They either fails , WP:CORPDEPTH, or WP:ORGIND. They are slightly better than average startup, but the mostly fail WP:SIRS as routine announcements or press-releases. scope_creep^Talk 21:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article deserves more improvement than deletion. The article is about a forming enterprise, a company that is one of the leaders in its niche in a country where infrastructure and road construction are consistently on the public agenda. Taking all of the above into account, I сonsider that the decision to delete the article is rather rash, it seems much more reasonable to be able to improve the article. First of all, rid the article of suspicious or dependent references because of what is possible to reduce the size of the article.--User:Миша историк^Talk 00:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reverted to to let a admin take a look at closing it. A non-admin closed without taking the whole Afd into consideration. It is a clear case of WP:BADNAC. scope_creep^Talk 14:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current sourcing, which is largely trivial and not intellectually independent. The problem may just be that the article is bad, but unless my Google-fu is extraordinarily weak today, I don't see much potential for it to be significantly better. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Weak rather than full because the company says on its website it has 2,100 employees, but I can't source that or find much in terms of company profiles in the reference sections. If someone who can do a better Ukrainian WP:BEFORE can find at least one good in-depth profile in mainstream press, that might change my vote. Otherwise, this is a weak delete. FWIW - this industry must be different in the Ukraine than in the US, since I'm not aware of any large well-known road building and paving companies. In California, that role is managed by state agency Caltrans. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: here are two sources with kind of decent media coverage: [23], [24] --Mulage9 (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I'm happy to review my !vote is references turn up, for now, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Good analysis above is indicative of the type of references available, none meet WP:NCORP requirement, topic fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the article lacks at least one good media coverage or detailed press mention in English. The company is indeed big and possibly notable. I still can change my vote if the article is at least slightly backed with better sources. --Asketbouncer (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Asketbouncer: here are some new links that might change your vote: [25], [26] --Mulage9 (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both are press-releases and not valid as sources. scope_creep^Talk 13:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6 and 7 above are also press-releases from an agency that known a business announcement portal. It is not a reliable source. scope_creep^Talk 13:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mulage9: thanks. I've looked and changed my mind to weak keep. The sources are not pre-releases, but a detailed mention of the leading Ukraine's news agency. It's more than reliable as all press-releases are visually marked on Interfax site and are put into separate section. --Asketbouncer (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are press-releases. They are not independent. scope_creep^Talk 14:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it say at the bottom: The ultimate beneficial owners of RDS Group are Ukrainian citizens Yuriy Shumakher and Yevhen Konovalov. in every one. Because there are press-releases and in the scheme of things, its a very low-quality source and you would only use it, if you had nothing else, hence the reason the originating editor points to it. It's a classic brand release marketing pattern. scope_creep^Talk 14:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it states in the ledes: group's co-founder, Yuriy Shumakher, has told Interfax-Ukraine. scope_creep^Talk 14:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: just updated the article a little bit and added an interview with CEO of Kyivshliakhbud (subsidiary company). --Mulage9 (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The nominator may be an WP:SPA but the other participants in the discussion are not, the consensus is that the subject is not notable and there is no attempt to refute this. ST47 (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Legg[edit]

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

Page isn't notable. page is a Self-promotion and publicity(although vandalised) for a person with no notability beyond a few media articles. This individual uses publicity (instagram/yourtube/new paper articles etc) to promote their business, this wikipedia article is just another facet of this. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/beatthescammers/article-8522169/Beware-bedroom-traders-boasting-fortunes-currency-bets.html KeithClark21 (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company he founded "TeamFX" doesn't even have a wikipedia article. If anything, the company should have an article and be deemed notable before an article on the founder be created (as the company seems to be the only reason the creator thought he was notable). Elijahandskip (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Elijahandskip's comments, there might be a case for creating a WP article for the company with which he's involved (although I couldn't find many independent, reliable sources that would pass WP:CORPDEPTH), but he simply doesn't pass the criteria at WP:ANYBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment/Keep Well after seeing the page history and all it seems he is being targeted with new users and even the nominator is new born and seems to have personal grudge, based on sources the page is passing WPGNG easily. Looks like being vandalised by a group of socks. JK.Kite (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Article contains fair content about Dan Legg and I do not believe deletion is the best for Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A40F:B200:617C:A795:77AE:5E43 (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign staff members[edit]

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

~~We have never had such a separate list for other national campaigns.~~ This is WP:NOT an encyclopedic topic. Many/most of the persons listed are not actual staffers, who number in the thousands and are rarely notable. Others such as "Vice-presidential candidate vetting team" or "Debate Preparation" are transient and should be better documented in the main article. Entire sections are WP:SPECULATION about future positions in a future transition or future administration.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never have articles for campaign staff. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^^ WP:OTHERSTUFF. KidAd talk 21:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have never had.... Barack Obama and John McCain disagee. Still, it does seem like material that should just be covered in the main campaign article(s). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've stricken that argument, updating the OP. I'd missed those articles, as they are the only such campaign lists in their category. This one does not appear in that category, and this does not appear to be anything like those lists. It would need to be completely re-written to match (or matter).
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:LISTN. An aggregation of this information is useful, and I don't think it would fit in the Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign page. KidAd talk 21:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines;" Please point to the respected and reliable sources that makes this a notable list. The main source "Biden campaign grows more diverse with people of color making up nearly half of staff" literally has no mentions of any particular names. This would be fodder for the campaign article, but does not itself make a notable list.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with KidAd, the sourcing currently in the article shows a LISTN pass. "We have never had an article like this" is just WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have never had an article like this is also flat wrong per Rhododendrites. KidAd talk 21:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my mistake. I should have been more thorough. We've never had something like this, but we have had a very few other related lists. Again, rather than simply citing LISTN (a guideline) or OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST (an essay), please show that this specific list meets the requirements for an encyclopedic article. In particular, some entries are cobbled together from multiple individual sources. Most have no source at all. That's a violation of WP:NOR and WP:SPECULATION, policies that trump a mere argumentation essay or guideline.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Since OP, some sections have been removed:
(→‎Potential Administration Appointees: how the f is a potential appointee a campaign staff member?????)

(→‎Public Endorsements and Events: lol what makes you think someone who makes and endorsement is a staff member???)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But only add those names who have their own wiki article. Tessaracter (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per KidAd. Idan (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sotero Prieto Rodríguez[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NSCHOLAR, in fact, he allegedly committed suicide just because of his lack of accomplishment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NSCHOLAR is mostly geared toward scholars and academics who are currently alive and active. Someone who died in 1935 is best evaluated as a historical figure. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As XOR'easter says, with someone working this long ago, it isn't very meaningful to judge by WP:NPROF. His case for notability as a historical figure looks strong: there is an in-depth MacTutor biography [27], which I certainly believe to be an independent reliable source; indeed, this might suffice on its own. And I viewed the Cálculo Diferencial: Fundamentos, Aplicaciones y Notas Históricas source from the article, and the profile of him there also looks like significant coverage. I think that's enough for a keep. I'll also mention multiple sources from UNAM [28][29]. He appears to have been somewhat significant in developing modern mathematics in Mexico; also in the teaching of the history of mathematics in Mexico. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG (more appropriate for an academic from this long ago than WP:PROF, which is aimed at more modern norms for recognizing academic achievement) and per the MacTutor and second UNAM links given by Russ Woodroofe, both of which are in-depth reliable sources. MacTutor cites the UNAM source, so the two are not altogether independent, but it also cites two other published journal articles (one having the subject's name in its title), which strengthens the case for GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the two !votes above have argued. There's enough sourcing available for a biography on a historical figure. XOR'easter (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sotero Prieto was a professor at UNAM, there are sources and references of prestige, and developed an intellectual and pedagogical work with students of level, in addition to creating an important section in the subsequent National Academy of Sciences of Mexico.--Fittipaldi92 (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:GNG, as already been said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyView[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP. Sources are all press releases, name drops and comments from those associated with the company, non reliable sources.

Ref no. 1 Press release

Ref no. 2 Press release [30]

Ref no. 3 Passing mention

Ref no. 4 Written by co-founder Puneet Agarwal

Ref no. 5 Seems paid promo

Ref no. 6 writte by co-founder Puneet Agarwal

Ref no. 8 Passing mention, unreliable source

Ref no. 9 reprint of [31]

Ref no. 10 Press release

Ref no. 12 Passing mention

Ref no. 18 Insignificant source

Ref no. 19 Insignificant source Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, fails WP:CORP --Devokewater (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent, high quality references available Spiderone 18:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 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⁺⁺ 19:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong venue. ~ GB fan 09:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blucher (1939 German criser)[edit]

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

Reason Jontel (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in title; duplicate page

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as it’s clearly a mistake. Mccapra (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#R3/WP:CSD#G6. I have added a template to that effect to the page in question. This is technically the wrong venue as this is a redirect, and redirects are discussed at WP:RFD rather than here, but this deletion should be entirely uncontroversial so it doesn't really matter – WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. TompaDompa (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Quiet Room (2018 film)[edit]

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

Lot of PR stuff, but does not appear to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Glee^anon 11:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I waded through the Google results and found two reviews - this does need some further cleanup and I'll try to get to it tonight if I can. It's not the strongest keep, but there's enough to pass NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I watched this on Shudder for the synopsis - this really is a great short, if anyone wants to watch a good, creepy short film during the spookiest month of the year! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets BASIC/GNG if not NFILM. Glee^anon 08:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per both WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, in addition to more sources at search times "The Quiet Room" and "Sam Wineman", at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Right cite (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The film has two reviews. Which is enough to pass NFILM. Although, it's still semi-borderline IMO and the other sources in the article that are extremely trivial or about other things should really be gotten rid of. AfDs aren't cleanup though. So, whatever. It is what it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and the addition of more sources by ReaderofthePack. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changxing railway station[edit]

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

None notable railway station, we are not a railway guide book. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, otherwise we would have to delete the majority of railway station articles we have on WP. Nightfury 14:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure otherstuff is a valid argument.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, how do you determine what a "notable" railway station is? I've added a little bit more information to the article.NemesisAT (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable in its own right, not just existing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So if it is notable, why have you brought it forward to AfD? Nightfury 15:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was responding to the question "how do you determine what a "notable" railway station is?" its has to pass wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you said the subject was notable... Nightfury 15:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "how do you determine what a "notable" railway station? It is notable in its own right", I did not say it was notable, I said in order to be notable it has to be notable in its own right.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you mean by that? The article now has four sources so I would think it would be notable. NemesisAT (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" Of the sources only 2 seems to be more then one or two lines. The rest I am njot sure are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the others is a primary source, and the other is Chinese media (and so possibly state controlled). I am not sure these are enough to pass GNG.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly if you want any coverage of Chinese railways at all, you're going to need to allow some sate-controlled Chinese media as, as far as I'm aware, no other sources are covering Chinese rail in anywhere near enough depth. It would be a real shame to lose this information. NemesisAT (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This railway serves a county of over half a million people, which makes it notable. The problem is that with the mass deletion of several Chinese sources from Wikipedia, a lot of articles like this are being stripped of sourcing. I've been arguing at WP:RSN#Mass_removal_of_content_on_China-related_articles that this might lead to mass deletion of China-related content from Wikipedia - this article is just a tiny example of that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very useful + notable Devokewater (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just collecting some significant coverage from domestic news sources (make of them what you will):
- Article from Qianjiang Evening News
- Article from Zhejiang Online [zh] / Changxing News Network
- Article from Zhejiang Online / Changxing News Network
- Article from Zhejiang Online / Changxing News Network
- Article from Zhejiang Online / Changxing News Network
— MarkH₂₁^talk 16:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC); added more 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a soft consensus that we keep large heavy-rail station articles, and even disregarding that there is coverage of the station on Chinese media, as per above. There's also some more sources on Baidu Baike (like Chinese Wikipedia). Jumpytoo Talk 19:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough coverage of a non-controversial subject in local Chinese media to pass WP:GNG and there is a consensus that most train stations are included, as per WP:RAILOUTCOMES, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG clearly demonstrated above (whether the sources would satisfy OP's absurd political requirements is not relevant), and per the aforementioned WP:RAILOUTCOMES. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Railway stations are generally considered notable and the nomination hasn't explained why this one wouldn't be. Other stuff does of course exist, and applying a standard to a Chinese railway station that would not be applied to a station in Texas or Aargau is a textbook example of systemic bias. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have, there are not enough sources to pass gng, they are all either trivial mentions or primary sources..Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there aren't enough sources is because some editors are arguing that essentially all Chinese sources are unreliable. If only non-Chinese media is admissible, we'll end up with articles about the central railway stations of Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou and a few dozen other cities that Westerners frequent, but the countless Chinese cities like Changxing (with merely 620,000 inhabitants), which would be inherently notable were they to exist in any Western country, will drop out of Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be merges with the city article and lose nothing. We are not a station directory, we are an encyclopedia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus in the past has been that such merges are undesirable. Mackensen (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per WP:RAILOUTCOMES. --SalmanZ (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mackensen et al. WP:RAILOUTCOMES exists to establish basic ground rules for large, high-speed train stations, as this is: "Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD." This is about as unchanging a consensus as I've seen; it's not a "soft consensus". Deleting this because "all Chinese media are unreliable" is classic systematic bias and is thus untenable. If this were something controversial (say, prisoners in Tibet or a terrorist attack, heaven forbid), I'd understand, or if Jimbo declared trains stations to be run of the mill, but the coverage is substantial and uncontroversial as it gets. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. We invariably keep railway stations. Clear consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is the norm for active railway stations, schools, airports, etc. It does not meet the traditional GNG bar though, kind of confused why people are arguing it does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eintracht Frankfurt kits[edit]

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

WP:NOTGALLERY. Discussed before in 2018 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Ajax kit history), and furthermore in 2007 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Bradford City kits). As the result, there are several pages like this in Commons, either made by me or not. This page belongs there. Flix11 (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per prior consensus Spiderone 15:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGALLERY. A summary of the club's kit history can be included in the main article (it may well be there already, I haven't checked). There is no need for an article which consists of images of endless minor variations on the same basic colour scheme -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AFD consensus. Giant Snowman 16:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Sullyboywiki (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Marcus[edit]

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

This article runs afoul of multiple guidelines. First off it is sourced to one local coverage item. We generally want something more than local coverage, and generally multiple sources. This is especially true when it is human interest coverage. Also as a recipient as opposed to a doctor it is harder to build a case for notability. Then there is the fact that the opening reads "Travis Marcus is the first child ..." yet Marcus was born in 1990, he is 30 years old, he is by no definition a child, so the wording here is horrible. This is a classic example of BLP1E problems, although with 1 source connected with the event I am not even sure we have those. Not every organ transplant recipient is notable, and one source does not make someone so. We are not a newspaper, so not every child who gets a story about them being in the hospital in the newspaper is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and nom. The surgeon gets some (sensationalistic) coverage ([32]), but there is no indication whatsoever that the patient warrants an article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure whether this fails WP:BLP1E as I can't find any information to ascertain whether he's still alive: however, this lack of media coverage makes it clear that he has no enduring notability, so fails WP:NOTNEWS. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Natureium (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ghana "34" Aluminum Bucket[edit]

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

Non-notable product, no independent sources included in the article, none found. It's just a metal bucket. No, really. Note: Article was tagged via Page Curation by TheLongTone but discussion page was not created for whatever reason, I assume a bug, of which PC seems to have several. Taking it upon myself to create the discussion page--TLT, please chime in. --Finngall ^talk 16:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability. Like Finngall says, it's just a bucket. WP:BEFORE only finds buckets for sale. For a comparison, see Veronica Bucket, which does establish notability. Schazjmd (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absence of independent sources Spiderone 07:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ST47 (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selçan Hatun[edit]

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

One of several characters in this/these tv-series, imdb is only ref. An article for all characters may be a good idea, but IMO not separate ones. First time XfD, hopefully this works. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFICTION as written and I don't see better sources in my search, through I am open to considering Turkish sources if anyone can find them, maybe there is something there? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete: same problem as other articles on the same thema, dubious notability.--Phso2 (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFICTION completely. Unnecessary; already has a listing on the characters section of the Dirilis: Ertugrul article, and that info within the page is sufficent. Teavannaa (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete this is an increasingly notable series. But the characters have yet to receive coverage in secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG. A character list would be a decent idea and I would give it more leeway to WP:IMPROVE. Even then it would need to be carefully written and sourced to avoid deletion. Jontesta (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added sources to the article. Limorina (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Added sources seem like typical daily pop-culture dribble, so this still fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 School strike for climate. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Christiansson[edit]

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

I don't see how this article fulfills WP:GNG. None of the sources on it article are "significant coverage" on the topic. Only coverage about the political movement itself and some trivial mentions. It seems, he's one of the many "school strikers" around the world. Not enough in-depth coverage to have an article on Wikipedia. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 07:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 07:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable teenaged agitator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I partly agree with SirEdimon on the school striker aspect, but as for "significant coverage" I would say that the Gooi- en Eemlander article is significant enough, as it is about Christiansson himself, not just mentioning him in an article about the whole Climate Striking movement. On John Pack Lambert's statement, please give an unbiased argument as to why you would like to see the page deleted from Wikipedia, not a personal attack to the subject of the article. 2001:984:2360:1:4F81:13E:C977:6D5C (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to school strike for climate per WP:TOOSOON. gidonb (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Gidonb. He's not independently notable yet. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school strike for climate. It's pretty clear this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Although, he might be notable in the future and it's a likely search in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raat Baaki Hai[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON the film is not released yet. IMDB source is a diretory listing and Hindustan times source referred is a promotional article. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON since the movie isn't even out yet and therefore there's no reviews about or anything else that would pass NFILM at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, all I can find on it in RS online is the usual short promo pieces. Captain Calm (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - upcoming films would need to have WP:SIGCOV to warrant an article and this simply isn't the case here Spiderone 17:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Democrats (Norway, 1991)[edit]

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

This political list (not political party) stood once for election in a single municipality (albeit the capital of Norway) and gained six hundred votes. Totally minuscule, but what about RS? The article is supported by two newspaper sources, which is not enough to carry an article. However, a book exists which mentions the National Democracts (probably not accessible outside of Norway), and explains that Hege Søfteland was the only known member. The other members, if they existed, were secret. I therefore propose a merge and redirect to Hege Søfteland. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge per nom Whether or not it was an actual registered party, this would be non-notable (RS mentions notwithstanding), having contested only one local election and failed at that. WP cannot possibly be expected to log every unsuccessful, minor, here-today-gone-tomorrow political movement. By all means include a mention in Mr Søfteland's article, but that's all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is discussed in Norwegian WP and will probably be kept, see no:Wikipedia:Sletting/Nasjonaldemokratene. Should not be merged as the book linked to above shows this was not just the initiative of Hege Søfteland. Erik Gjems-Onstad was co-founder. For those who have acess to scanned Norwegian books in the national library (nb.no) it is clear that there are several books and quite a lot of newspapers who wrote about the party. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 13:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see above. The article is now kept in Norwegian WP and revision has started there. Decidedly relevant given the historical context when the party was active. There is a lot more sources available in Norwegian books and newspapers and further revisions will follow. Will probably be revised in Norwegian first and then English will follow given time. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 05:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to "vote" twice, so I struck the second "keep". What you have failed to demonstrate is that the purported sources are independent, in-depth non-trivial coverage. Keep in mind that I didn't propose deletion, but merging to the only known active member, so the information would be preserved. The book explicitly states that Erik Gjems-Onstad played a negligible role in this entity, he may have been present at the foundation meeting, but was never active. And I repeat that this political list (not political party) stood once for election in a single municipality (albeit the capital of Norway) and gained six hundred votes. Geschichte (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention of "voting" twice. The discussion was relisted and I repeated my opinion from the previous discussion. This is not a vote, this is a discussion of whether or not the article is relevant.

- Erik Gjems-Onstad was co-founder [[33]][[34]] which is not a negligible rolle. This should not be redirected to Søfteland.

- They also participated in the 1995 elections [[35]]. Then in cooperation with Stopp Innvandringen.

- Press coverage for the period 1990-1992 was significant [[36]]. They are also written about in several books although the book mentioned above is the longest and most comprehensive. Information from this source should be supplementet with other sources though.

- This is a question of expanding the article with the available sources from the books, newspapers and journals scanned by Nasjonalbiblioteket. They are available at nb.no and can be accessed by roundabout everybody resident in Norway. --regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 09:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ST47 (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basheer Koko[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. BEFORE showed only mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 03:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 03:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It probably could have been an A7 Speedy; I can't find a single statement in the article that amounts to an indication of why its subject is important or significant; but I respect the nom's abundance of caution in bringing it to AFD instead. TJRC (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article nominated for deletion has a Subject that was a top Executive in Nigeria LNG company, I have provided several references and I don't think this nomination is fair. B Enkay 45 (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a deputy director of even a very large company is not by itself sufficient to confer notability. BD2412 T 03:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject also played a significant role in negotiations of deals for the Nigerian oil Company NNPC, and is largely responsible for the establishment of NLNG's trains 6&7, working even after retirement. Subject is basically a political figurehead in Nigeria. B Enkay 45 (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is also the 'Sarkin Yakin Gwandu' of Gwandu Emirates of Kebbi State, Nigeria. That is a very prominent traditional role. B Enkay 45 (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's article will be expanded (by me or anyone else) as I gather more sources, and will emphasize his importance. If this council is adamant on deletion, then I do plead to be given more time to incubate the article.B Enkay 45 (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@B Enkay 45: This discussion will continue for a week, so you have time to add references that show that Koko has been written about in depth by multiple, reliable, independent publications. See Help:My article got nominated for deletion! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and remove the one dead link (It actually wasn't when I cited it) in the references. There is also only one non independent source which I can replace. B Enkay 45 (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by nom & BD2412. Celestina007 (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable civil servant. References are either mere mentions, dead links or non-independent sources. It shows how Nigeria's culture is so different that a film about his leaving party made it onto Channels TV. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or redirect somewhere. We shouldn't wash out the reference named "Buhari must hear this" and describing <quote> NLNG, NNPC 110-man delegation to South Korea, a jamboree. In what appears to be a jamboree typical of the waste characterizing Nigeria’s beleaguered oil and gas industry, the Nigerian Liquefied Natural Gas, NLNG, and the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC, at the weekend sent a 110-man delegation to Seoul, South Korea, for the commissioning of some gas transportation vessels.</quote> Pldx1 (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Pldx1: for your candid response. The above quote from the article "Buhari must hear this" is quite interesting, and shows how much you did actually pore through the content of the wiki article. Nigeria's oil sector "extravagance" notwithstanding, the point of my citing that article is to indicate how the subject continues to play an important role, helping with negotiations for Nigeria LNG company even after retirement. Nigerian news media is incredibly sensational btw, and always tends to highlight the rather non technical aspects of such outings (Like how the estacodes of officials was blown out of proportion in the article which is rather standard practice)B Enkay 45 (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the earlier comments are rather weak "per nom" or other brief remarks; would like some discussion on the later points in the debate
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~I am not sure why the early !votes were weak?~~ The author said on 6 October that they would add more sources, but we have nothing new. Regarding Pldx1's suggestion that the news article about 110 Nigerians seemingly going on a jolly to Korea was significant, Basheer Koko is merely a mention in that article. Perhaps it could be added to Nigeria LNG#Controversy and/or Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation#Corruption at the NNPC, but I don't see that affecting the outcome of this AfD. He may still be active in retirement, but unless there are new sources that surface showing in depth coverage about him I can't see any outcome here but delete. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anyone interested in developing content toward a merger may ask for a draftspace copy. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Business Houses Football League[edit]

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

It gets a mention [37] in Harry Redknapp's autobiography of all places but, that aside, there is nothing to suggest that this amateur league was ever notable. It could potentially have had very, very minor local coverage. A WP:BEFORE search turned up absolutely nothing other than primary sources and database listings. Fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 08:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable lowly league. Giant Snowman 11:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Local interest only. Nigej (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Essex Alliance Football League so we don't lose the information in the article (I haven't done a before search.) SportingFlyer T·C 11:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Anglo-Ghadar War[edit]

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

The coherent (start) portion is copied from the leads of other Wikipedia pages, such as: Ghadar Mutiny and Komagata Maru incident, while additional text is at the bottom. It is unclear such a war happened, sources do not use this name. I am also nominating Third Anglo-Sikh War which is a copy of this article. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. This seems to be more an aggregation of information about groups opposing British rule in India and the "war" seems to have been a few small skirmishes, but those lack any references.Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as OR and SYNTH. Srnec (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Hospital[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Fails to pass NCORP. The article has been created/edited mainly by SPA and COI editors. M4DU7 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and peacock language (e.g. is the "brainchild") should be avoided. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; lack of high quality sources available Spiderone 17:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jessie Earl[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTNEWS. While news resurfaced due to parents wanting the case re-opened, no long-lasting effects. Simply another tragic occurrence. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did consider this issue when creating the article and decided it was notable per WP:EVENTCRITERIA points 1,2 and 4. The sad chain of events begins with the disappearance of Jessie Earl in 1980, then the case was re-opened in 1989 and 2000, now in 2020 there are further developments, all of which demonstrates enduring historical significance. At every stage the event received national mainstream media coverage. Mujinga (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even after decades, still receives highly significant coverage (e.g. [38]) Spiderone 08:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is more than just a normal tragedy, as it is still receiving coverage even after 40 years. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle (film)[edit]

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

Non notable documentary. Everything found in a WP:BEFORE had to do with the director or were film database sites. Rotten Tomatoes reference is a user review, no critic reviews present. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the article has been improved since nomination with additional content sourced to reliable sources including two reviews at least, one in a cycling magazine and one in The Scotsman which is a national newspaper. Unfortunately couldn't get The Scotsman link to load so this is a weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 96' Lost Tapes[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and isn't mentioned at all in Phunk Junkeez, thus not making it a good candidate for a redirect. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:34, 6 October 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, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2011-02 ✗ G11

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phunk Junkeez. While the nominator's right that this album wasn't mentioned in the main body of the band's page (I've now added it), it was listed in the band template at the bottom of the page. The album clearly fails WP:NALBUM, and the band's page is in dire need of a clean-up. As an aside, the page is mis-titled: according the the album cover, the apostrophe should be before the numbers. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I'm changing my vote to DELETE, given the typo in the page's title. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trend Receiver[edit]

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

Neutral point of view and No original research Doc Taxon (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the sourcing and tone of the article lead me to conclude this is an open-and-shut WP:NOR case. SITH (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Methodenforschung (talk • contribs) 16:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The trend receiver concept has gained momentum in the past ten years and several articles have been published. I also use the concept in teaching master students in my course strategic foresight. Jan Oliver Schwarz, Professor, ESB Business School, Reutlingen University — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:3A0F:5D01:858:F138:EE3B:1855 (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

as co-authors of the article "Trend Receiver" we appreciate your continuous efforts to maintain the quality of the free encyclopedia and we are aware that the published articles must be subject to strict control. However, after taking some effort to gather the various sources and after creating an overview article on this topic, we would like to argue why the content of the article is scientifically sound and relevant in terms of content.

The Trend Receiver concept has now been existing for 10 years and it has been receiving growing attention both in research and practice during this time. The article provides an overview of the topic area and does not reproduce individual research results - accordingly, only selected graphics and definition phrases are picked out as examples. Especially over the last years the Trend Receiver concept has been addressed and mentioned in a growing number of scientific articles and these have been quoted and the concept has been discussed in a number of further publications. For example, you will find publications on the Trend Receiver concept in the following recognized journals:

- “Technological Forecasting & Social Change": Article “Visionary competence for long-term development of brands,products, and services: The trend receiver concept and its first applications at Audi”; find PDF here: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0040162514001954?token=CFC09A4881B3278BD4F6EA9AA6D94B31159F8454A83FC1AAFBD0D54CA3A96A3960B75B34CD27D4A30A73C58FB2B2281F

- “Technological Forecasting & Social Change": Article “Strategic Customer Foresight. From research to strategic decision-making using the example of highly automated vehicles”; find PDF here: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0040162518305626?token=DD18B0A1A8D175FE74BDEFC8665EADD2D82AD937DF0BE5FC067B8B300C68039C10F7A1CB4B8E6678B9F615CDF1CE6275

- "Marketing Review St. Gallen" : Article “Customer Foresight Territory”, find PDF here: https://www.elaboratum.de/files/uploads/2020/06/MRSG_01_SPT_Eller-Hofmann-Schwarz_200430_mb2.pdf

- "Marketing Review St. Gallen" : Article “Customer Foresight Practice”; find PDF here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342164123_Customer_foresight_practice_-_how_to_access_future_markets_through_extraordinary_people/link/5ee64d76a6fdcc73be7b981e/download

And in another publication in “Marketing Review St. Gallen” Prof. Dr. Jan Lüken has discussed the concept in the article “Looking for Prophets? The Trend Receiver Approach” Etc. (Find the exact references and other publications in the Wikipedia article.) The here mentioned journals exclusively publish articles after the double-blind-peer-review procedure, which confirms the neutrality and relevance of the research. These publications are accompanied by various practical examples of the concept of which several cases are also published in various places. The applications of the concept range from a study for the Bavarian State Chancellery in the years 2013/2014 to the use in various corporations (Audi, Bentley, Gore, BSH, Hornbach etc., see also the cross-industry platform Foresight Academy where 13 major companies are participating and where the concept is a central part of the methodological approach; find more at www.foresightacademy.com and related to the application of the Trend Receiver Concept at https://www.foresightacademy.com/cont/10574 ) as well as agencies (Hyve in Munich, Gravity in Munich, Z-Punkt in Cologne, etc.). Regarding the practical applications of the concept, see also the studies Tuesday 2025, Easy Rider Study and the Cross Industry Study "How do we want to live in 10 years? (references in the Wikipedia article).
http://www.foresightacademy.com/ We also consider it worth mentioning that several leading universities are involved in the application within research projects and in discussions and methodological reflection of this concept: Goethe University Frankfurt (Prof. Dr. Andreas Hackethal, Prof. Dr. Jan Landwehr), University of St. Gallen (Prof. Dr. Andreas Herrmann, Prof. Dr. Johanna Gollenhofer) - or the contributions by Prof. Dr. Jan Oliver Schwarz from the ESB Business School Reutlingen or Prof. Dr. Johann Füller (University of Innsbruck) or Prof. Dr. Alexander Hahn from Technische Hochschule Nürnberg. We hope that some of the mentioned publications and scholars and the mentioned organizations and use cases help understanding, why we argue that the article "Trend Receiver" represents an added value for the encyclopedia and should be available to interested readers for further reading and editing/improvement. With kind regards Methodenforschung (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Methodenforschung, noting the repeated use of "we" above, and noting your account name, can you confirm that this account has been created by and is used by an individual and whether there is any conflict of interest which needs to be WP:DISCLOSEd concerning this article and the Customer foresight article? AllyD (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AllyD, thank you for your response. The account Methodenforschung is used by me and a colleague of mine. Both of us are researchers and we have worked with this concept. The post and argumentation why the article “Trend Receiver” should be kept was first written by me and before posting it was feedbacked by my colleague. That’s why we were repeatedly using the “we” as you noted. Annotation: I could not find any information that it would be unwelcome or forbidden to use a joint account for the work in Wikipedia. But in case a clear separation of who contributed which part of the text would be necessary, then let us know and we will do this. I also checked the COI hints and do not see a conflict of interest. I want to confirm that my and my colleague’s effort is scientifically motivated. Please get back to me in case of further questions.Methodenforschung (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [spill the beans] || 06:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Inclined to delete, per NOR. The most used references are to the author of the concept (Hofmann), which doesn't suggest the sources are independent from the subject. Is this concept used beyond Hofmann's publications? The "literary reception" section covers some of that, perhaps if this secondary coverage is foregrounded to develop the entry that would help. Do those sources meet GNG for academic concepts? I'm not in a position to evaluate, as I'm not knowledgeable about this subject, but I think if it does, it should be rewritten. Shameran81 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More Sources: We understand the concerns about the scope of the use, references and publications beyond the authors publications or the publications in which the author of the concept took part.

But it’s worth mentioning that there are two more references (one is from 2018, one from 2020), which we found by recent online research: 1. The article “Brand management and the world of the arts: collaboration, co-operation, co-creation and inspiration” (Baumgarth, 2018, p.239) refers to the Trend Receiver Concept. It quotes this concept as an example of the use of arts, artists and artistic techniques to gain customer insights and a deep understanding of the past, present and future. 2. The Foresight Academy, a cross-industry platform which includes 12 major companies such as Allianz, Lego, adidas and Ferrero, has published two handbooks and information about research processes and methodology on its website. Within the described processes it applies and quotes the Trend Receiver concept (see https://www.foresightacademy.com/cont/10574) We have added these references to the text.Methodenforschung (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wilding (director)[edit]

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

I have been working on cleaning this article up as most of it was unreferenced, or referenced to press releases and promotional materials. I've added some reliable references but noticed there is barely any substantial reliable sources. I went to move it to Anna Wilding and noticed the article had been deleted several times before, and has been salted. -- haminoon (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pinging User:Swatjester and User:Jreferee per WP:SALT -- haminoon (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough to reach the notability treshhold, but the article is poor and needs a rewrite. The is more online about her on a number of reliable sites - although there is also a lot of self promotion which is logical NealeFamily (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:* KeepI also think it should be kept, just needs a re-write. As for the previous deletions and SALT under Anna Wilding, those are from 2007, 2011 then Salted in 2012. A lot appears to have happen since then including being a White House correspondent/photographer of Obama and her national solo photography exhibit on him. Think she meets WP:GNG for stuff shes done, so it just needs to be fixed and then an eye kept on it to stop it becoming promotional again, instead of actually being deleted. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 10:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but please note that it was not a national exhibition. Some of the claims that previously appeared on the article are pretty wild. -- haminoon (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True and I should have been more careful looking into it but it does appear that is more the issue with the article than it needing to be deleted.NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 20:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am less and less sure now going through the article that she is notable and more that she is just excellent at getting into the papers. About the best things she has done was the White House photographer and the one film and I originally said she was notable under WP:GNG but am now changing my vote to delete instead after going through each reference more carefully.NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 10:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable - the quality of the article is not grounds for deletion. This article has been the subject of excessive templates and vandalism and still contains far too many "citation required". This should be a "SNOW". The purpose of templates is to identify a number of areas for improvement but this article has a fact, followed by a reference, followed by "citation required". The article could be improved by removing even more of these templates as well as improving an emphasis on facts. Victuallers (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't think she meets the notability bar, including as a photographer. I don't have any objection to un-salting the original page if the outcome of this is to keep; however I suspect you'll end up running into the same vandalism issues if it is kept. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is sufficient coverage, particularly around her book of photographs. For that alone is sufficient to establish notability. The article needs copy-edited. scope_creep^Talk 11:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Extra consensus, noting one user has changed their view on keeping the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 07:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the person is well covered in media and her contribution to the film industry is quite notable. --Synhuliak (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep it seems like she's covered in the media enough to be notable. Although, it's pretty borderline and the sourcing generally isn't that great IMO. Hence why it's a weak keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smilebox[edit]

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

Multiple previous article instances were deleted between 2007 and 2015, though none of these reached AfD. The present instance began as a declined AfC but was moved into mainspace by the article creator. The article references are predominantly financial transaction announcements and product announcements (most recently, the two uses of the firm's June 2020 PR announcement with Vonage), both of which fall under Trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, for which DGG's comments in reviewing the declined AfC still seem appropriate. A 2012 PCWorld review of the company's slideshow product has been added since, but I don't see that or other coverage found in searches (e.g. a PCMag UK 2018 screenshot item) as sufficient to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undisclosed paid-for spam with no evidence of notability. GSS ^💬 14:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as answered to GSS on my talk page, I think this article has some solid sources outside of the PR zone. At first I thought about adding the content and information to Perion article, but I figured that Smilebox can live on its own as there are other similar articles out there. Legalife103 (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Legalife103: There is evidence off-wiki to support my claim above and I'm happy to share those details with an admin if required. GSS ^💬 14:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perion Network as they acquired this company. Lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability means this company fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldnormally agree with redirection, but not with this history. Of course, anyone else could make the redirect after we remove all of this. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ST47 (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Swarupananda Paramhansa[edit]

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

No indication of importance to be included in Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO based on search results, as far as I can see. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence of notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability and not even an assertion of notability Spiderone 17:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jam Urban Adventure Characters[edit]

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

As the article says, "The following is a list of characters who appear in stories that are related (however tangentially) to the Jammer,". The sources are self-published and merely prove existence. I do not conside this encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of a WP:LISTN pass, sourcing consists exclusively of primary sources and a search brought up nothing useful. The article consists essentially entirely of in-universe information, meaning that it fails WP:PLOT, which also means that there is no information worth merging anywhere, and the title is not a useful redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary content fork that should be summarized in the main articles. There is no real world information present, so there is nothing to merge. TTN (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:LISTN as far as I can see. I agree that there is nothing to be merged. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely comprised of in-universe plot summaries, with nothing but primary sources being used. Searching for additional sources also turns up nothing. Fails the WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ST47 (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Stevens[edit]

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

promotional paid editing. The many refs are either self-authored or represent the subjects other attempts at promotionalism. Some newspapers apparently tolerate this, but WP is an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So promotional I would consider speedy deletion. Quite impossible to separate out any substance from it in this state. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party LiveLine[edit]

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

Does not satisfy radio program notability guidelines, at least as written. Has already been moved into draft space as undersourced by User:Noq twice. Continuing that alternative to deletion would be move-warring. Google search shows that it exists, and that it advertises itself. We knew that. No third-party coverage obvious, and no independent coverage referenced in article.

Concern was raised by reviewer about conflict of interest, and tag was applied. Submitter removed tag rather than discussing the tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, promotional, created by a user with the same name as the main presenter (user name has since been changed after COI warning). Google searches finding very few hits. noq (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Noq. Couldn't find anything reliable about this show. Also, it started this April so it couldn't achieve notability in such a short time. Let's wait a few years with this article, when it (hopefully) becomes notable. Until then - delete. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Garabedian: Barely found anything about the radio show aside from an AllAccess article. Definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Liberation (album)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG, has had no citations since it was created 14 years ago, hasn't had any content additions in 14 years (though editors have added wikilinks and an infobox [39]), and is basically complete original research (because of lack of citations). I can't be sure, but I don't even think it's a music album. Maybe this content belongs in some other article (maybe PETA, Animal liberation movement, or even Dan Mathews), but as best I can tell it doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Normal Op (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did an internet search and found reliable citations including from The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune, and I have gone ahead and added these. The article should be kept as a result of its notability and it could be much expanded and improved. BrikDuk (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive discussion of the album in this article, including nods towards discussion/accolades in significant publications (NYT, NME) and the broader significance of the album. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Among others, the New York Times, the Chicago and Los Angeles Readers, Rolling Stone, Billboard, The Gavin Report, and Tower Record's Pulse magazine all reviewed the album". Josh Milburn (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons mentioned above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 21:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No dispute with the voters above; and the nominator should become familiar with WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Some articles can be cleaned up rather than deleted, no matter how long they've been in a deficient state. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 21:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you, Doomsdayer520, should familiarize yourself with WP:No original research (a core content policy) and WP:No personal attacks before insulting me as not doing this week what no one else had done for this article in 14 years! You should look at the version of the article I encountered before everyone started working on it after AfD was started. Now that people who care about this article have shown up and improved the article (though I notice you haven't), the article can stick around per WP:The Heymann Standard. But if no one cared then the non-sourced OR article would get deleted by default. So, if all you have to contribute to AfD discussions is to insult nominators for not performing well enough to your standards what you weren't willing to do yourself, hadn't done, and neither had anyone else, then you should consider staying away from AfD discussions lest you run off more editors. At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off. Recognize that AfDs are not competitions, are not inherently adversarial, and can (and often do) result in improvements to Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal attack, and Doomsdayer wasn't even close to advocating original research. Don't be ridiculous. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Josh Milburn for serving as a voice of reason. If a recommendation to become familiar with some policies is a "personal attack", I would love to see how Normal Op reacts to something that is truly insulting. It would probably be to write yet another giant paragraph that consumes far more time than simply improving the article in question. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 17:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks fine with the added sources. Jmill1806 (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other users above. I don't see an issue with the references of the article. HiwilmsTalk 15:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah V[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, multitagged since 2017, no improv Staszek Lem (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem notable. I did not find any reliable sources about her. Also, article creator only edited this article and added her link to Jessie J's concert tours, before disappearing. So the COI is strong. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after searching her stage name and full name, I was unable to find anything more than this short magazine interview and an extremely short article in a local paper. Fails WP:GNG Spiderone 21:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although this is another AfD where the weighting of !votes depends on the precise meaning of "presumed notable", the argument that the subject meets WP:NPOL has not been rebutted, nor has the existence of verifiable information (which may nonetheless fall short of GNG standards). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Beattie[edit]

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

No real indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this appears to be a personal genealogy project started by a SPA. Probably interesting to their family but absolutely zero indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No evidence of anything that would pass WP:ANYBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls short of SOLDIER and sources indicate it is well short of meeting the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails WP:SOLDIER but passes WP:POLITICIAN: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels as a member of the Michigan state senate. Although the article is unsourced, due diligence shows that it is indeed correct, and that there is enough material to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have done the due diligence pointed out by Hawkeye, which shouldn't need to be pointed out, and cited a source in the article confirming a pass of WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN - that's enough to keep the article.Less Unless (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment better sourcing is needed of the claimed notability under WP:POLITICIAN as he still lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS.Mztourist (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What needs to be better than the source that I provided? It is independent and reliable, confirms that the subject was a senator and gives a biographical sketch. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does it say? Mztourist (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion on the WP:POLITICIAN criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep US state Senators are considered notable, although we don't know whether he did something or just sat. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NPOL. Here's freely available RS online verification, which also gives a brief bio of him. The WP:SOLDIER failure doesn't matter, as he's notable for other things. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:BIO states under Additional Criteria: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Passing WP:POL is not conclusive. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all members of state legislatures are considered to be notable by default per WP:NPOL. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep borderline pass of WP:NPOL as it's written, there's enough information to write a verifiable stub. (I originally closed this as keep, but have self-reverted and !voted instead upon a request on my talk page). Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Bench Creations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This company does not seem to have received any significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article is seems to exist to promote the brand and work of a company that does not meet our notability standards. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Salimfadhley: If this article is deleted, shouldn't you also delete Potential Studios?TamilMirchi (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I see that you have answered your own question, and I think I agree with you. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that The Hindu, India Today and New Indian Express are reliable sources used in the article? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Our standard is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. A newspaper may be reliable for certain topics and less reliable for others. Each reference must be reviewed on it's own merit. You can defend an AfD by showing good quality sources to attest to the notability of a subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep The company produced a bunch of films with wikipedia articles, meaning it is not some kind of laptop production. Reliable sources are provided. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. An examination of the references shows the following:
- This from The Hindu is based on an interview with the founder and is absent any detail which has clearly not been provided by the founder. This is not Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND. Similarly, this from The Hindu is also based on an interview and there is no evidence of any Independent Content therefore also fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Times of India mentions the company twice. Once to say that the movie being discussed was produced by the company and the other to say that it would be the second film produced by the company after their previous film. This is neither significant coverage as per WP:CORPDEPTH not in-depth and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This next from Times of India mentions the company once, in passing, to say that the movie being discussed in the article was jointly produced by this company. This also fails WP:CORPDEPTH for the same reasons as the previous reference above.
- This from The Indian Express, [this from the Hundustan Times, this from Indian Express, this from India Today and this from New Indian Express all fail for the same reasons as above. The company is mentioned in passing (once) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- The company isn't mentioned in this from Times of India and therefore fails to establish notability
- This reference from The Hindu is entirely based on an announcement and acknowledges this in the second paragraph. This therefore fails WP:ORGIND

None of the references in the article meet the criteria required and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you get the logic wrong. The notability guideline means that if some criteria are satisfied then the subject is notable. However is the criteria are not satisfied, we are open for further discussion, because there cannot be possible 100% coverage by the Rule Book. In this particular case, if the company produces many films and these films are reviewed (and even have Wikipedia articles!), certainly the company deserves coverage. Compare this with professors. We judge professors by their professional output and how this output is judged by peers, and not by how much "in depth" biographical information about that professor can be found in a single taken article. Typically there is none, with the exception of really exceptional people. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Staszek Lem, that's not correct, references must meet both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Also, take a look at WP:NOTINHERITED. No company "deserves" coverage. They're either notable or not and we have guidelines which tell us the criteria for establishing whether or not a company is notable. Other guidelines exist (e.g. WP:BLP) for other topic areas and have different criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- They're either notable or not -- Once again you fail to recognize your logical error. Let me be more detailed. The policy says " An organization is generally considered NOTABLE if it....". It does NOT say "An organization is considered NONNOTABLE if it....." Meaning tghat your "or not" is not based on the policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- YOu are alkso confused about "NOTINHERITED". The guideline says "merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with " THe porduction house is not "merely associated" -- films it pproduced are it MAIN reason for life and notability.COntinuing my analogy with professors: they are notable because of trheir WORK. They ARE their work. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Staszek Lem, just to summarise, you didn't push back on references needing to meet both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND but you push back on the argument that none of the references meet the criteria. You say that references about the founder or the movies are implicitly also about the company and that NOTINHERITED doesn't apply because your interpretation of "associated with" falls short of the relationship between the company and the founder/movies. I disagree for the reasons I've already set out above which are the most common interpretations at every NCORP AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't give a damn about this company, so I am stopping here. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per HighKing's detailed analysis of the sources - this fails NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cabayi (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanair Flight 4102[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable aviation incident. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS; we don't need an article every time a plane is written off Spiderone 12:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was nominated in 2012 for the same reason by the same person and it was kept with fairly strong consensus. What's changed that justifies deleting the article? Currently leaning keep but open to discussion. Jumpytoo Talk 19:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving the_Boeing 737#737 Next_Generation (-600/-700/-800/-900) aircraft where it is already mentioned, not particularly noteworthy on its own IMO as no deaths occurred. Also citing from the WP:AIRCRASH essay suggests the following: For airline and large civil aircraft, a listing of notable aircraft incidents and accidents, where appropriate. Accidents or incidents should only be included in aircraft articles if ... The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport which suggests to me that this particular article isn't notable enough as a standalone article. Nightfury 20:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change of vote to keep per below. Nightfury 10:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 20:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ryanair – where it is already covered in sufficient detail – a more meaningful target than a mile-long list of 737 accidents of all airlines. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An aircraft that is almost new was written off. Such a course of action is not taken lightly. This is not your run of the mill birdstrike. Lack of fatalities ≠ lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Written off means hull loss doesn't it? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it was an airliner hull loss, with injuries to crew and passengers as well. It was also a fairly unusual and noteworthy hull loss. - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hull loss, injuries on board, and overall a significant event. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the hull loss alone would pass WP:PLANECRASH. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and move to A Cubic Mile of Oil. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cubic mile of oil[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of notability. Only one of the cited sources I checked (IEEE Spectrum) wasn't either primary self-published. A search turned up references to the book by the same name, but nothing on the subject itself. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete. An impressive piece of original research, though. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete or rework~~ move to A Cubic Mile of Oil. The article is a curious mix, part is about the unit but it then goes on to a comparison of energy usage. I think these consumptions are found elsewhere on Wikipedia. If we look at the first source its a book "A Cubic Mile of Oil: Realities and Options for Averting the Looming Global Energy Crisis"[40] and the rest of the article follows the theme of the book. So this article works better if we think of it as an article about the book and not the unit. Thought of as about the book the problem does not seem to be one of OR as these are the topics discussed, but instead becomes one of notability. Is this a notable book, are their enough citations to this book? There are some substantial reviews like this one from The Globe and Mail.^[1] Potentially some of the material could be incorporated into Hewitt Crane page.--Salix alba (talk): 07:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more source ^[2]--Salix alba (talk): 14:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that if we do move it, someone needs to do the work of modifying the article. Maybe that's just re-writing the first sentence, I don't know. But I'm not volunteering. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

move to A Cubic Mile of Oil, the book is notable while the unit of measurement currently is not. The book has "been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself".(See WP:NBOOK) Here are two non-trivial reviews by two different people independent of the book.^[3]^[4] This would require a lot of trimming of the current content, but plenty of it could stay, as it is a big part of the book. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to A Cubic Mile of Oil. The book meets the relevant standard, while the unit does not. I have stubbified the page accordingly. XOR'easter (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Energy use answers can be found in a cubic mile of oil". 6 October 2010. Retrieved 2020-10-14 – via The Globe and Mail. (Note paywalled, you can only view it on first visit)
^ "Full Page Reload". IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. Retrieved 2020-10-14.
^ Dolbear, Geoffrey E. (July 2011). "[No title found]". Fuel. 90 (7): 2553. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2011.03.004.
^ Speight, James (2011-04-13). "Book Review: Cubic Mile of Oil". Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. 33 (12): 1209–1209. doi:10.1080/15567036.2011.552333. ISSN 1556-7036.

Keep I have referenced this article dozens of times and was about to use it again when I found it was up for deletion. I presume the article will be deleted because deleting useful articles is the mode Wikipedia is in. I guess if I want to use it again, I will have to save a copy since the history goes away with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkhenson (talk • contribs)
Keep and move. The book has enough published reviews to be notable. I think that makes a better primary concept than the wacky measurement unit. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dacia Sandero. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dacia Sandero III[edit]

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

Unnecessary, the previous generation Sanderos didn't need a separate article. They can add any further information on the main article. Vauxford (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like it should be redirected. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect; this shouldn't have been sent to AfD, as it isn't that controversial. Although noting this shouldn't have been placed on the French deletion delsort. I thought Dacia was Romanian? Nightfury 08:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Less Unless (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems appropriate in this case. Alan Islas (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Energy use answers can be found in a cubic mile of oil". 6 October 2010. Retrieved 2020-10-14 – via The Globe and Mail. (Note paywalled, you can only view it on first visit)

[2] "Full Page Reload". IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News. Retrieved 2020-10-14.

[3] Dolbear, Geoffrey E. (July 2011). "[No title found]". Fuel. 90 (7): 2553. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2011.03.004.

[4] Speight, James (2011-04-13). "Book Review: Cubic Mile of Oil". Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. 33 (12): 1209–1209. doi:10.1080/15567036.2011.552333. ISSN 1556-7036.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]