Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 August 12 August >

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. Salvio 08:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Sussex Safer Roads Partnership

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

Non notable local road safety initiative. Article is sourced only to the organisation’s own material, while WP:BEFORE searches only turned up more primary sources but no in-depth coverage by independent sources. Neiltonks ( talk) 23:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 23:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 23:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I'd !vote redirect, but I can't find a suitable target, because this initiative is split over various local governments. It certainly doesn't pass the GNG, though, so it shouldn't remain as an article. -- Slashme ( talk) 12:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/redirect to Embrace Life. Non-notable organisation. Appears to have been made due to redlinks on the Embrace Life page, and could be a useful redirect to the info about the organisation already on that other page. Seagull123 Φ 22:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 07:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Gini (soft drink)

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

A soft drink, no references (tagged as such since 2012), no attempt to assert notability. Sources were searched for, nothing turns up save advertisements, shopping sites, and mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Zaathras ( talk) 21:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've updated the article and added some more sources in addition to those cited above. The brand has a very "hot" image in France with its ads using innuendo and sexuality in liberal dashings. They have also used ex-adult entertainers as the face of the brand notably Clara Morgane i'll try and find a RS for that! -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 11:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Anyone can write anything into an article, the point is that there was no source to support that assertion. The article sat unsourced for years, and your lazy prod removal without even making a pass at addressing the problem was insulting and borderline disruptive. Zaathras ( talk) 22:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It is true anyone can add anything into an article but your prodding rational was "zero assertion of notability" which as Andrew points out is false as the article states "It is well known in France". I would be tempted to say that your Prod was particularly lazy as well. I don't think it takes much imagination to suppose that a soft drink that has been around for 50 years has acquired enough notability to be in Wikipedia and that sources will exist. So maybe prodding is not a sensible approach because it is meant for uncontroversial deletion. On top of this the French language version does have some sources so even if you can't read French you can deduce that sources do in fact exist and the article needs improving instead of deleting. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 08:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Also you may need to revise the definition of disruptive editing because as clearly stated in WP:DEPROD when deprodding "You are strongly encouraged, but not required, to also: ...Consider improving the page to address the concerns raised." (my bolding) You may consider Andrew as having been lazy but laziness is not in itself disruptive as long as guidelines and policy are respected which it was. And also if you feel insulted if someone removes your PROD I would strongly suggest not adding them because they get removed all the time. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 08:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Now the article has plenty of references that discuss the product, of which two are full-length articles about their marketing strategy. Passes the GNG. -- Slashme ( talk) 12:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Would add that this is (now) exactly the kind of article that makes Wikipedia excellent: well-sourced details about things that initially appear unimportant, but when researched thoroughly can turn into great articles. Well done, everyone. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 14:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 09:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

The Violin Guild

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

non-notable forum/facebook group, no evidence this meets any notability criteria. Having notable people who have been members does not equate to notability for the org/group. Praxidicae ( talk) 21:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Notability is not inherited; unless it can be shown that the forum itself is independently notable, this page should be deleted or merged into the pages about its notable members. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 22:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — forum/org lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Celestina007 09:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The Violin Guild (TVG) has nearly 40,000 members, spread throughout every state and every country. It is independently notable. Hundreds of Wikipedia's documented artists are members of The Violin Guild. It has been reviewed extensively by the string instrument industry's most notable magazines and figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolepag ( talk • contribs)
The page cites very, very well-known (to the field) articles magazines. The Violin Guild (TVG) has nearly 40,000 members, spread throughout pretty much every state and every country from what I can tell. It is independently notable, and notable elsewhere. Hundreds of Wikipedia's documented artists are members of The Violin Guild. It has been reviewed extensively by the string instrument industry's most notable magazines and figures.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolepag ( talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Ducky Bhai

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

Most coverage seems to be WP:ROUTINE and not enough to prove notability, additionally the page was likely created by a WP:UPE. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 21:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: there are at least two mainstream news articles in the refs that discuss him in detail. The article isn't obviously promotional, so I'm not prompted to reach for WP:TNT just because someone might have been paid to write it. -- Slashme ( talk) 12:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Discuss him in detail ? I don't see that. The coverage is run of the mill. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I've removed OR and unreliable sources. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Friday Saturday Sunday

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

Non-notable restaurant that fails to meet WP:NCORP/ WP:AUD notability requirements. DEPRODed by user:Andrew Davidson without any explanation despite prod being seconded by User:Doggo375 Rusf10 ( talk) 21:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 21:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 21:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 21:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Bay Point, California. Salvio 09:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Ambrose, Contra Costa County, California

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

Started as Ambrose Ranch and then the Ambrose station was created on the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe RR. The ranch land was sold to build an oil refinery. After WWII the the surrounding area was filled with suburban tract homes, none bearing the name Ambrose. An Ambrose Park and Recreation District was donated by one of the wealthy housing developers. So, the name has some history as a locality but doesn't seen that anyone ever considered it a community. Area is now a census designated place called Bay Point. I don't think it's notable as a standalone article but If folks prefer, we could redirect to Bay Point, California. Glendoremus ( talk) 20:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Bay Point, California or delete. Ambrose has no legal recognition as a locale (GNIS does not count) - no post office. No non-trivial coverage. I found no references for Ambrose being a community in Google Books. In newspapers.com, I found some trivial references where it was claimed that someone lived at Ambrose: [5], [6], [7]. Google Books and newspapers.com also had reports about an Ambrose school, Ambrose Park and Rec. and Ambrose Park. Ambrose Park is not very close to the GNIS location of Ambrose siding. I don't have strong feelings that this should be a redirect, but by redirecting instead of deleting we might prevent the article from being recreated. Also, Bay Point, California covers Ambrose Park. Cxbrx ( talk) 02:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Salvio 09:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Jo Gibb

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

Non-notable actress; article is currently unsourced with no evidence of reliable sources existing. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 20:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Edited vote. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 20:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The citations that are accessible mention subject only in passing, and include primary sources (thisistheatre; a cast listing; and the EvStandard article merely a show announcement) and one permanent dead link. Not enough to establish notability. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 20:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I reviewed the sources. It is inaccurate to say that the reviews that talk about Gibb's performance and include a quote from her mention her only in passing. DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 21:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'Merge and redirect' to Bennington College. This discussion has not found sufficient evidence of notability. Being represented in a fictional universe isn't in and of itself a contribution toward notability. Simply linking to WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, etc does not make a subject notable; unless evidence of notability is provided that is specific to the page under discussion, such a !vote carries no weight. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Camden College (fictional college)

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

No references included in article and no evidence of notability. Nathan2055 talk - contribs 20:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 21:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Drag Race (franchise)

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

This article is redundant because there's internation spin-off articles at the originated American version article. Happypillsjr ✉ 19:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 13:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can always be recreated if sufficient coverage is found once the season is actually underway. Fenix down ( talk) 06:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

2020–21 Macclesfield Town F.C. season

2020–21 Macclesfield Town F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSEASONS following Macclesfield's relegation - BBC Sport Microwave Anarchist ( talk) 18:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist ( talk) 19:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist ( talk) 19:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist ( talk) 19:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 09:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Barbara Staropoli

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

I don't believe Sr. Staropoli meets the requirements of WP:NMUSIC or WP:NPROF. I looked for additional references and found only routine, run-of-the-mill local news coverage. Her book is held by at least 74 libraries (I don't know whether or not that's a significant number); I wasn't able to find any book reviews. Cheers, gnu 57 18:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 18:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 18:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 18:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 18:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 18:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While there are several !votes in favor of merging, there is little consideration of what content is worth salvaging, and where it should go. Anyone interested in developing this towards a merger is welcome to ask for a refund on my talk page; the target of any redirect can be determined via talk page discussion. There is clear consensus here that a standalone article should not exist. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Theodore Roosevelt V

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

Notability is not inherited, and TR-V has no independent notability of his own. Famous name, sure, but there's no real significant coverage that's independent of the subject. Mentions in genealogical lists, listings from organizations where he works or serves on the board, and wedding announcements doth not SIGCOV make. The Fortune article about Lehman Brothers mentions him in one line - not SIGCOV. Another piece, in the Times - is SIGCOV about a ring, not about TR-V. schetm ( talk) 17:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. schetm ( talk) 17:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MissiYasında&& ( talk) 17:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment: I'm in favor of details being merged into his father's article as well as the family one. — ADavidB 01:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Being related to a notable person does not make anybody notable. Alex-h ( talk) 08:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable. While there is a lot of content in the article, notability is barely even asserted. I would be strongly against merging into either his father's article or especially Roosevelt family. If a person does not have independent notability, then their biography is not suitable for the encyclopedia. This is in contrast to sourced non-notable non-person articles which can be integrated into larger notable topics. At most a few sentences in his father's article would be appropriate if they can be sourced.-- Michael White T· C
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn AfD that offered no argument for deletion. This AfD came to no consensus about the notability of the topic. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

GDevelop

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

A draft article created by numerous GDevelop community members and project contributors has been worked on since May at /info/en/?search=Draft:GDevelop . On 7/22, someone unrelated to that group created what appears to basically be a stub article. We didn't become aware until submitting the draft for approval on 08/09/20. After talking with the reviewer at /info/en/?search=User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Proposed_/info/en/?search=GDevelop_for_deletion_so_/info/en/?search=Draft:GDevelop_can_be_published, we submitted a proposal for deletion so that we could then move the community article out of draft state and maintain the edit history. Unfortunately, another reviewer missed our conversation with Robert and removed the proposal for deletion, and we are now unclear on how to proceed /info/en/?search=User_talk:Soetermans#Need_to_understand_the_process_for_deleting_https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGDevelop. We would like to delete this "live" Article so we can move the draft into production. Any/all guidance is appreciated Trayal ( talk) 17:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This article has at least some probably reliable sources. The "article created by numerous GDevelop community members" looks like a pure fan cruft without any RS, if I would "vote" delete, I would delete that one. Pavlor ( talk) 17:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close No deletion rationale. The goal of AFD is to determine the suitability of a topic for Wikipedia based on the notability guidelines. If this discussion were to close as Delete, it would mean the Draft is unsuitable for moving to mainspace and there would be no article at all. That's clearly not what the nom wants. This should be withdrawn and the nom needs to make a request for a histmerge. -- ferret ( talk) 18:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Above !vote for a procedural close is in consideration of what the nom's clear intention is, which is NOT for GDevelop to be deemed non-notable. If others feel the AFD should continue on normal grounds, I'll dig deeper to make a proper keep/delete argument. -- ferret ( talk) 18:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hey all, thanks for the info and comments. As a clarification, we were directed to submit an AFD as part of this discussion: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Soetermans#Need_to_understand_the_process_for_deleting_https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGDevelop . Absolutely happy to submit any other type of request. If the preference would be to merge the content and additional sources to the main article, that's absolutely fine too, we've just been following the guidance that was given from the reviewers mentioned in the original post above. Any guidance is appreciated. Trayal ( talk) 02:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hey all, just checking back in on this. Are we okay to proceed with moving the content from the Draft:Gdevelop article, keeping the majority of the existing live article content and references, but adding the additional details? Assuming that's acceptable, I can apply that change and this AfD can be closed out. Trayal ( talk) 23:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    Trayal, you can WP:BOLDLY change the article content. Just a warning that you might end up back here because, based on at least one review of the draft, it's not clear that this topic is notable (Wikipedia's standard for what does and doesn't get an article). However, this AfD isn't about that and you can use the merge discussion to decide what content best serves this topic. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Schwester

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

The page only lists WP:Partial title matches, and I'm not sure any of them would be simply called "Schwester". The "People" section is especially inadequate for a disambiguation page, as the first entry is similar to listing all rappers starting with "lil" on a dab page for that, while the other one is like doing so with all nurses under "nurse". As a general rule for foreign-language redirects, I think it's fair to say that if the topic is a common noun, PTMs are probably too generic if they are such with the English translation. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sœur. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 17:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 17:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Sœur

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

The page only lists WP:Partial title matches, and I'm not sure any of them would be simply called "sœur". 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 17:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 17:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 09:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

List of tourist Attractions in Karachi

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

Unreferenced list, which content is already included (and much better described) in the Wikivoyage guide. A.Savin ( talk) 17:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Ta-Ronce Allen

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

Non-notable actress. Small filmography consists entirely of bit parts with the last coming in 1983. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 16:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Marty Riskin

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

A non-notable cartoonist for Massachusetts newspapers. Best I could do by way of WP:SIGCOV was this trivial mention in a college textbook and this local history of Lake Quannapowitt and Wakefield, Massachusetts. Was anthologized in a couple of books of "year's best cartoons" but I don't think that's enough to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:NAUTHOR. Article used to claim he won something called the "Clayton Kirk Award for Political Satire" until I looked that up and realized it was fake. Notability tagged since March 2009. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 16:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 16:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Kohinoor Square

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

Phew. I tried to salvage this advertisement for a botched scam-ridden Mumbai building, which is unfinished and whose only notability seems to be the fact that it is unfinished. I cannot find in-depth reliable sources that attest to its notability. The only news on it has been surrounding the financial irregularities of the project. Even after removing all the puffery in the article and balancing it with the controversy section, I have come to the conclusion that it does not at all meet Wiki's notability guidelines. Fails WP:GNG. (Also note the creator's problematic history of creating other puffed-up articles on proposed or non-notable buildings/architects like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Imperial 3, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gkkworks, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovery Offices) Best, MaysinFourty ( talk) 15:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  • PS and Delete from Nominator: Just like the creator's other very problematic articles, these poorly sourced articles on buildings and projects often just end up providing a veneer of legitimacy to the corrupt projects of real estate tycoons of the city, and, essentially, serve as proxy advertisements. MaysinFourty ( talk) 15:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The L&T claim seems to me to be dubious as I can't find a reliable source for it, and the ref used doesn't work. Usually there's a press release that Larsen and Toubro puts out on their website. I smell fake news, but can't be sure...in any case, the more I read about it, the more I'm convinced that this doesn't belong on Wiki. MaysinFourty ( talk) 10:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I couldn't understand your comment. Are you saying that the alleged fraud case is notable, but the building is not? If so, we agree. This article is about the building that claimed to be notable, but which wasn't. The fact that it got mired in a controversy cannot now lend it renewed notability. For that, someone will have to create something like "Kohinoor land fraud" or somesuch article. This one, though, does not belong here in my opinion. Best, MaysinFourty ( talk) 14:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
That is what I meant, was just wondering if there was a way to convert this article into one about the alleged fraud case. But there doesn't seem to be much that is salvageable so I'd go with delete as well. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Sanfield (Management) Limited

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

An article on a construction contractor which fails to meet WP:NCORP. The first source in the article is a promotional blurb which is unlikely reliable and independent of the subject; the second source is more promotional stuff from the parent company's (Sun Hung Kai) website. A further search of the company in English and Chinese language sources failed to reveal additional qualifying sources. Dps04 ( talk) 14:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dps04 ( talk) 14:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Dps04 ( talk) 14:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Further comments from the nominator: In addition to the sources mentioned above, I was only able to find mentions of the company in two "news sources": 1 and 2. While 1 is a reliable news sources, the article is little more than a promotional piece for the company's internship programme which is likely not independent of the subject; 2 only has brief mentions of the company. A merge to the article on the parent company is not a good idea either, as the parent company is a huge company with lots of business portfolios and subsidiaries, and mentioning this paritcular subsidary without the other subsidiaries the company controls seems to give undue weight to this subsidiary. -- Dps04 ( talk) 15:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete can't find anything sugesting notability, fails WP:NCORP -- Devokewater @ 18:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:MILL. Bearian ( talk) 21:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I think we hard similar deletion for HK conglomerate already. Such as Emperor Group's subsidiaries. It is not relevant that how big parent company is (or how long the parent article), if the subsidiary's GNG/NCORP is derived from parent company and the subsidiary itself does not have stand-alone GNG/NCORP passing status, some GNG content of the subsidiary should merge to parent company's article. Matthew hk ( talk) 09:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Matthew hk, thanks for the comment. The point is, as a large company, Sun Hung Kai has hundreds of subsidiaries (see p.228 - 236 of their annual report for a list of their subsidiaries), and if the contents of this particular subsidiary was merged into the SHK article (but not other subsidiaries), this would give undue weight on an article on SHK, as I would have thought this particular subsidiary would have been a minor aspect of SHK per WP:BALASP. This is not relevant to the length of the SHK article. For the same reasons, I am not sure I agree with you that this subsidiary has inherited GNG or NCORP from its parent. Again, we can discuss on the sources if you could provide the news article results you found on Sanfield (Management) or 新輝. Thanks for the contribution -- Dps04 ( talk) 09:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 12:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

McKay, Calaveras County, California

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

This one is another puzzle, in that there was a prominent McKay family of loggers, and their names show up constantly in searching. There is also an area to the east of this supposed settlement called "McKay's Point", and just east of that is the McKay's Point Dam and reservoir. What I cannot find is anyone referring to a place called McKay, other than standard clickbait. The closest I came was local historical reminiscence talking about the family and implying that the various members lived close to one another. It's possible that this McKay is that locale, but I cannot firmly establish that. Mangoe ( talk) 13:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The McKay family operated one of the areas earliest sawmills on Love Creek. I'm guessing the site named McKay marks the location of that sawmill and other logging facilities. The fact that we can only speculate on what was there seems to be a good indication that it isn't notable. Glendoremus ( talk) 04:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio 12:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Tony Ciccone

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

Non-notable film editor. Ciccone never rose above the role of "assistant film editor" and the only sources to be found about his career are IMBd and his own LinkedIn page. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:FILM. Only an assistant editor and not even a sizable filmography to boot, with the standard lousy sourcing for an article on a non-notable subject. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 01:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable film editor/actor during his 30+ year career. Body of work; 32 films, 11 TV shows, 1 video game and 2 music videos. IMDb lists Ciccone's domestic Box Office for 16 films at $847,257,098. He is the only "hyphenate" Picture Editor/Actor that I am aware of. Since the dominate basis for article deletion nomination is mis-understanding that Ciccone did not 'rise above role of "assistant" film editor', I will start with that. Motion Pictures Editors Guild has Ciccone classified a Z1 Motion Picture Editor (highest classification) since 1999. Other "final credit" titles that can be attributed to a Z1 Picture Editor include; "Additional Editor" "Associate Editor" "Editorial Consultant" "Co-Editor". Meets WP:FILM Sources/significant coverage on his career. Google search for Tony Ciccone editor resulted in 93 global websites that include his bio and/or his resume; 5 "celebrity" websites include bio/net worth/personal details; 3 websites contained articles on his work. Google's People Also Searched For included; notable collaborators; Hans Zimmer, Tom Cruise, Paula Wagner, Robert Towne, Thandie Newton, Ving Rhames. One can make a reasonable presumption early in his career, that Ciccone appeared in TV Guide "Guest Star" listings. Regarding IMDb Pro Starmeter system, where filmmakers are given a rating, Ciccone's career span has a much lower (better) star-rating than most other picture/sound editors listed in Wikipedia. This tells me that he specifically is popular. I will add more sourcing shortly, bear with me, I am a novice. Article has been live since March 17, 2008. The material is out there, the subject just needs a little TLC as opposed to deletion. User:John537 10:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC) — John537 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete. He exists, but fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 14:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The claims of the nomination are false. It was easy to find reliable, substantial secondary sources. References have been added to make a robust list. Furthermore, when I posted this article in 2008, I had no idea there was an obligation for me to contribute on various topics. Just because I can doesn't mean I have to. Leave me out of the equation and 33 other editors have still contributed 71 edits - not nominate the article for deletion. Perhaps they thought, "why would I delete a stub that provides information to people who are seeking it?" Notability isn't a reward Wikipedians hand out for achievements, it's a reflection of how a subject is viewed by independent, reliable sources. Over 90 independent secondary sources worldwide have published information on Ciccone for other's to know. IMDb shows the cover to a magazine that interviewed him when he was an apprentice editor. They consider him notable, which means he is notable. The films he's done have grossed over $1,000,000,000 in world-wide box office. User:John537 11:43AM, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Namedropping famous actors/celebrities or how much the films he's worked on have earned at the box office do not help in establishing notability. On the contrary, all the sources therein are either primary or nonviable: Facebook, Netflix, generic cast listings, Blogspot, IMDb, the Swedish Movie Database (wtf?) and so on. Promotional content, such as an "unofficial" Facebook page, "body of work" blurb at the beginning and unverifiable "breaking new ground" hyperbole, has been removed. It's clear as crystal that you're really doing nothing more than promoting the subject — maybe a conflict of interest even — as your edit history completely centers around Tony Ciccone. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Well, that's ten minutes of my life I'm not getting back ... see, I just went over the "sources" recently added, and they're a bunch of cast lists, user-generated bits and namedrops. Not a single damn one provides significant coverage to the subject, as the GNG requires. In the filibustering above, User:John537 hauls out just about everything but actually establishing the subject's notability by Wikipedia guidelines. The number of editors contributing to an article does not meet any Wikipedia notability standards. The total box office of films on which a subject's worked does not meet any Wikipedia notability standards. (Hell, I bet there are deputy assistant under-animators working for Disney contributing to ten times as much $$$ box.) The subject's purported "classification" does not meet any Wikipedia notability standards. And so on. I strongly recommend that User:John537 familiarize himself with those standards before pursuing this further. Ravenswing 16:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens ( talk) 17:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Orwood, California

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

Another rail facility mistakenly identified as a community. Durham calls it a locality on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe RR. There was a post office located there but, as we've seen, it's not a good indication of community. Location is still completely agricultural. Not a community and not notable in any other respect. Glendoremus ( talk) 00:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 00:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I feel that having a post office means that a place is " legally recognized", which is a difference of opinion than most other editors. In this AfD, I did get Editorofthewiki to agree with me, but I believe that I have not gotten many (any?) other editors to agree with me, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography. I'm changing this to a Weak Keep so as to not block consensus. Cxbrx ( talk) 14:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
what related page? Glendoremus ( talk) 20:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 11:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Yet another erroneous GNIS designation. Post offices are not indicators of passing WP:GEOLAND because they are not legal recognition and in the context of a RR station a post office may be tied only to postal rail functions and not to a populated place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, I don't see any evidence that this place was legally recognised, and there's clearly nobody living there now. I don't agree that having a post office constitutes legal recognition. If it's not legally recognised then it has to pass the GNG, and it clearly doesn't. Sources which mention that people living there bought cars, somebody stayed there overnight once, etc are not usable as sources as they couldn't be cited in the article. Attempts to infer other things from the terminology used in headlines or the naming of nearby resorts constitute original research. Hut 8.5 07:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In my view, having a post office is an indication of legal recognition. The fact that there were residents establishes this as a community. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 18:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
well, it's not. Back before RFD, post offices had to exist for people to pick up their mail within a reasonable distance, and thus they were put in all sorts of places, including houses. It didn't mean there was a town by that name. Mangoe ( talk) 00:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I do understand that. But the presence of articles about people from Orwood helps establish this was a community in some sense, if a largely agricultural one. So I'm not proposing that the presence of a PO is a guarantee of notability, but an indication. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 14:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails notability. WP:GEOLAND states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" Typically does not mean always, presumed is not a guarantee. The simple presence of a Post Office (past or present) at a rail junction does not meet WP:N: "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice" What about this is worthy of notice?   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland. Tone 10:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Prince Gabriel, Duke of Dalarna

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

Per the recently closed Princess Adrienne nomination, which sums up to the following:

  • The subject is a toddler who has yet to do anything more noteworthy than being born, thus falling under WP:BLP1E.
  • The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC because there is no significant coverage, nor can there realistically be any. What the reliable sources have covered is his birth, a single event that should be covered in the biographies of his parents.
  • That a child is related to public figures is not a reason for a standalone article about the child, as explained by the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline. Everything there is to say about Gabriel, i.e. his name and date of birth, is stated in the articles about his parents and that should suffice.
  • Aside from his birth, the 2-year-old "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". This again ties in with WP:BLP1E. The likelihood is due to his removal from the royal house and the announcement that he will not perform royal duties as an adult. [9]
  • Since there is nothing to say about the 2-year-old other than that he was born and that he is related to some people, the article functions merely as a genealogical entry. Yet Wikipedia is not a genealogy database dump, per WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
What would you say about Catherine's very young child??? They are great-grand sons or daughters of Queen. Cape Diamond MM ( talk) 08:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I agree fully Necrothesp. BabbaQ ( talk) 14:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • You actually, seriously believe that having articles on grandchildren of reigning monarchs undermines Wikipedia's reputation as a serious encyclopaedia?! How about great-grandchildren of ruling monarchs, like the children of Princes William and Harry? Can't say a great deal about them either, but any serious encyclopaedia would cover them. Presumably, not being from an English-speaking country, the Swedish royal family is an easy target for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • No, that is not what I believe. I wrote what I believe. There will be time to reconsider other articles but William's children may be attracting more significant coverage due to being children of a future king, unlike the subject of this article. The point is that significant coverage matters. Surtsicna ( talk) 16:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The Queen has a number of grandchildren who are never going to be children of a monarch. They all have articles. The coverage of them and of William's children is only routine coverage accorded to any child of a notable person. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • If you believe that the coverage of some other persons is routine coverage accorded to any child of a notable person, I encourage you to propose those articles for deletion and make your case. Surtsicna ( talk) 16:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • But that's the point, you see. I realise that notability is often not only defined by rigid rules, but by a sense that some topics just are notable and of value to an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 21:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • There's a .sig I use on VBulletin forums, and have for many years: "It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I don't agree with what you're saying." I won't say that I'm "aghast" at the ongoing ability of people to equate "discretion" and "common sense" by their own shibboleths -- there's only so long righteous indignation will take a person -- but. Ravenswing 16:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Everything there is to know about this toddler can be said in the article about his father, and a redirect would lead you to that information. The article about Donald Trump's 14-year-old son is looked up 50 times more often, and yet a redirect does just fine there too. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete at once His older brother's article has been deleted, but this is still here. Why? These are living people, the parents and the little boys, whose lives & life stories should not be handled with such carelessness because a few Wikipedians like to have tiresomely lengthy and supercilious discussions about them. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 18:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect: Brushing off the illegitimate WP:ITSUSEFUL and "All royals are notable!" arguments -- no one's arguing for the notability of cute blond royal toddlers are out there battling for the notability of tribal monarchs in Nigeria, say. Those claiming a GNG keep plainly misunderstand the GNG, which is not a hundred namedrops in however-reliable sources, but actual significant coverage, to the subject, in reliable sources. This obviously has not been forthcoming, and to any voter who might respond "Well, how much can you say about a toddler?" I answer, "You're right. You can't. Which is why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article." Ravenswing 16:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Essentially, those advocating deletion produced stronger arguments, including WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:LOWPROFILE Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Prince Alexander, Duke of Södermanland

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

Per the recently closed Princess Adrienne nomination, which sums up to the following:

  • The subject is a preschool child who has yet to do anything more noteworthy than being born, thus falling under WP:BLP1E.
  • The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC because there is no significant coverage, nor can there realistically be any. What the reliable sources have covered is his birth, a single event that should be covered in the biographies of his parents.
  • That a child is related to public figures is not a reason for a standalone article about the child, as explained by the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline. Everything there is to say about Alexander, i.e. his name and date of birth, is stated in the articles about his parents and that should suffice.
  • Aside from his birth, the 4-year-old "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". This again ties in with WP:BLP1E. The likelihood is due to his removal from the royal house and the announcement that he will not perform royal duties as an adult. [10]
  • Since there is nothing to say about the child other than that he was born and that he is related to some people, the article functions merely as a genealogical entry. Yet Wikipedia is not a genealogy database dump, per WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I always seen these delete voters at many AfD discussion for royalty articles. I think the vote brigading is here . Surtsicna and his members (mostly with Johnpacklambert and TompaDompa) are ever active on royalty article and want to delete articles with his delete voters army. It is not fair and bullying by force, IMO. Thanks 🙂🙂🙂 Cape Diamond MM ( talk) 08:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect To a parent article. Also I personally think these articles are Weak keeps however the name is a plausible search term I don't know why people don't realise that. Govvy ( talk) 11:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per BabbaQ. These nominations are getting ridiculous. How exactly is this benefiting the encyclopaedia? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with you Necrothesp. I assume you are refering to WP:GNG when questioning what benefits the project. BabbaQ ( talk) 14:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • You actually, seriously believe that having articles on grandchildren of reigning monarchs undermines Wikipedia's reputation as a serious encyclopaedia?! How about great-grandchildren of ruling monarchs, like the children of Princes William and Harry? Can't say a great deal about them either, but any serious encyclopaedia would cover them. Presumably, not being from an English-speaking country, the Swedish royal family is an easy target for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • No, that is not what I believe. I wrote what I believe. That a child's relationship to a public figure is not a reason for a standalone article about the child is not an opinion of mine but part of this project's notability guideline. That William's children have received more significant coverage than Carl Philip's may have to do with the fact that William will be king of 16 (or so) countries while Carl Philip will not be king of any, but the reason is not important. Surtsicna ( talk) 16:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The Queen has a number of grandchildren who are never going to be children of a monarch. They all have articles. The coverage of them and of William's children is only routine coverage accorded to any child of a notable person. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • But that's the point, you see. I realise that notability is often not only defined by rigid rules, but by a sense that some topics just are notable and of value to an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 21:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Discreetly shunning the policies and guidelines established by community-wide consensus is one thing, but openly referring to a "sense that some topics just are notable" has me aghast. At least it's clear the discussion is futile. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JMHamo ( talk) 17:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

PMS Clan

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

Non-notable group, with limited Reliable Sources to prove notability JMHamo ( talk) 10:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MissiYasında&& ( talk) 18:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MissiYasında&& ( talk) 18:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
PS: I will expand the article using the sources found by me and editors during the previous nomination. Less Unless ( talk) 10:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is an extremely messy discussion, but on the balance there is consensus for deletion. As those arguing to delete correctly point out, NCORP requires not only significant coverage in reliable sources, but significant intellectually independent coverage in reliable sources. While many sources were provided in this discussion, those sources were convincingly rebutted. Some "keep" !votes were also particularly weak, as they did not address the subject's notability directly, and as such received less weight. Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Power Ledger

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

No evidence of notability under WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Claims are sourced to self-sources, one "startup news" source repeating promotional claims, one actual RS talking about the company and its activities. Previous sourcing included extensive cites to cryptocurrency sites, which are not usable for claims of notability, and press-release churnalism about things the company claimed it was going to do. WP:BEFORE shows almost entirely such promotional churnalism about things that had not happened and that there's no evidence ever did happen. Extensive filbustering of the previous AFD led to a "no consensus" result; I'm pretty sure nothing of substance has shown up in the years since. David Gerard ( talk) 20:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 20:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply
I've collapsed the details so as to avoid the appearance of filibustering this nomination as well. Those three news articles are about PowerLedger as a failed scam - but the first and the last two are failed WP:CRYSTAL - they just repeat aspirations claimed by the company (aspirations that failed), rather than being sources of factual claims about the company, I believe you brought these up last time as well, and nobody was impressed by the books' clear churnalistic nature. Being on Google Books does not make a failed WP:CRYSTAL claim a reliable source for a claim of notability. To your credit, at least this time you didn't also include the book chapter that was co-written by a guy from PowerLedger, and which you claimed then was an independent reliable source for notability - David Gerard ( talk) 13:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC) reply
David Gerard I appreciate you checking his sources. This is something he has repeatedly done and denies having a problem with. Even after I opened a complaint at ANI about it and an admin told him on his talk page to make sure his sources were reliable before he posts them. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 18:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The filibustering walls of text got to be such a problem on previous AFDs that community remedies were considered, until he undertook not to do it again (and then did it again here) - David Gerard ( talk) 21:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Analysis of the sources:

    Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage says, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." I will show that the sources have provided "deep coverage" of the company.

    The chapter written by Yin Cao in book the Woodhead Publishing book discusses Power Ledger in four paragraphs (388 words in total). It contains critical analysis of Power Ledger. It says "Regulatory pressure and funding will be the main challenges for the future of Power Ledger" and says "Power Ledger has a fatal defect, which is the token it requires, named POWR".

    The Australian Financial Review (AFR) has published several critical articles about Power Ledger. The articles have so angered Power Ledger's leadership that the AFR noted in August 2019, "Power Ledger is suing the Financial Review in the West Australian Supreme Court over articles published in December [2018] that raised questions about how the company raised $34 million for its blockchain tokens, and the effectiveness of its electricity-trading system."

    A December 2018 AFR article said about Power Ledger, "Articles exaggerated Power Ledger's achievements. The company was often described as operating a retail electricity market, and sounded liked an eBay or Amazon for solar power. In reality, it was building the technology and didn't have a commercial market operating. Twitter was flooded with posts. Some claimed Musk had asked the company for advice. Fake accounts were rewarded with POWR tokens for their promotional work."

    A peer-reviewed conference paper published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers provides about 250 words of coverage and analysis about Power Ledger. A Nicholas Brealey Publishing book provides about 1.5 pages of coverage about Power Ledger. There is enough coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.

    Cunard ( talk) 06:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Too early for wiki notable. Blockchain companies are in 10000+ and they paid handsomely to some writers who can make good articles in digital channels of notable media. Wiki is not a directory for these companies. Above references are ridiculously posted without even analysing what is even written there, just usual copy-paste job and even wasting time of community to even find the meaningful content on those references. Major media digital channels are driven by several freelance writers which can not be considered as the source of genuine coverage by media. they work on project for paid writing and companies use them to write such articles. how 250-500 words are in-depth coverage of a company? just FYI Writer in the Guardian. "Max Opray is an Adelaide-based freelance journalist". Light2021 ( talk) 01:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Note to closer, this contribution is from an individual violating their topic ban, subsequently indeff'd added by PainProf ( talk) 03:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I consider the AFR reliable, given its broad coverage there I would have been surprised if it didn't have wider coverage in the Australian press. I found multiple RS. All of these organisations are known for fact checking and independent journalism.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/blockchain-technology-fuels-peer-to-peer-energy-trading-start-up/9035616 https://www.smh.com.au/business/energy-startup-carries-out-australias-first-cryptocurrency-raising-20171004-gyu14p.html https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/13/could-a-blockchain-based-electricity-network-change-the-energy-market https://www.austrade.gov.au/news/success-stories/power-ledger-delivers-first-of-its-kind-renewable-energy-project-in-south-east-asia https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_MRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fbusiness%2Ftechnology%2Fpower-ledger-expands-footprint-in-japan%2Fnews-story%2F5834b78e10b654a8f1c94a313d0a3fff&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&nk=ffe5225d1c1f5ff1dd5fd55a38c31ded-1595851365 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-08/trading-solar-power:-retirees-plan-for-the-future/7914736 PainProf ( talk) 12:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete These block chain companies and routine articles about them are a dime a dozen. All the sources provided in this AfD about the company seem to be extremely trivial or otherwise not usable for notability. For instance a 250 word "article" isn't in-depth coverage and the freelance guest writer in the Guardian article isn't a reliable source. Neither is the Australian Governments website. While an article about them raising initial funds for their cryptocurrency is trivial coverage according to WP:NCORP and could apply to the beginnings of most cryptocurrencies. People invest in them. That's how they work. Also, according to the consensus in a discussion on RSN, conference papers aren't generally reliably. So, I see nothing notable here, couldn't apply to every other cryptocurrency startup or that passes WP:NCORP in any fashion. Nothing about any of that is surprising though. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 02:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. Block-chain companies are extremely common. The sources cited seem to be routine business news coverage. Bearian ( talk) 15:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Undecided: Some sources apart from the one's mentioned above. The Economic Times [11], The Hindu [12], TechCrunch [13], ZDNet [14], Yahoo [15], [16]. The nominator argues in the previous comment that three news articles are about PowerLedger as a failed scam. So what? Please include this vital info in the article. How does that justify deletion? Also, @ Bearian:, what is routine business news coverage in your view? There are some examples below WP:CORPDEPTH, and I can't relate these to those examples. The news coverage I see isn't "routine business news" because these news sources aren't articles about some stock price fluctuations, annual reports, corporate events. - hako9 ( talk) 13:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Hako9: That Hindu piece is parroting the same old blockchain hype that caused people to believe it would take over the world:

Another benefit came from tokenised funds that were released upon meeting pre-specified conditions, such as optimising a battery for the highest value activity without any manual handling required, reducing transactional friction and providing a faster settlement process.

What is the advantage here? They make it sound like the blockchain understands what "highest value activity of a battery" is, when it is unclear what that means, and that blockchains cannot do so because they only encode decentralized properties (like PoW) into their consensus rules. In short: no such thing is possible to automatize (the claim of the paragraph). More likely, semi-automated APIs separate of the blockchain are triggering conditions that cause the transaction to happen. How is this any different from the triggering of a contractual clause outside of a blockchain application? How can you trust a source that lists a "benefit", without actually explaining what the benefit is? -- Ysangkok ( talk) 17:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply
They don't have to be right... and the idea doesn't have to be a good one, a lot of the sources here suggest a controversy about whether they are a good idea particularly the AFR ones. To be clear, there is a lot of hype about blockchain, doesn't however mean that it isn't notable. Some of these Australian outlets are very obviously highly reliable and significant (for instance the several sources in the ABC, the numerous articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian and the Australian Financial Review. IMO The ABC doesn't really cover MILL like news, and here that is evidence by the fact they physically sent journalists to cover it in person and perform interviews with customers etc which isn't typical for routine press releases or announcements. PainProf ( talk) 17:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The Yahoo piece is a reprint from bottom-of-the-barrel bitcoin blog CoinRivet. The others are churnalism, repeating the company's aspirational claims - David Gerard ( talk) 07:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply
But that's the thing. What one may define as churnalism is subjective. Unless you have sources which are denied to me and likely everyone else, I assume you can't prove these stories were pre-packed and given as is, to the hindu, ABC, ET, AFR etc. and they failed to have any journalistic oversight. Wishing these sources (The Hindu, ET, AFR, Guardian, ABC are clearly reliable sources) raise their editorial standards and exclude puffery is not an argument for deletion. To me it is very clear. Either raise the notability bar in our notability policies to expressly exclude companies like these and BLPs of instagram models/youtubers who somehow pass notability because they happen to have reliable sources, (which I'd like) or maintain status quo. - hako9 ( talk) 09:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply
WP:NCORP specifically covers this variety of nonsense in WP:ORGIND, so no, it isn't just my personal feelings versus yours - David Gerard ( talk) 11:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Well, can you tell me how did you conclude that none of the sources are independent? The ET article is credited to Anshul Joshi (not a non-staff writer). Similarly, the Hindu article - John Xavier, Techcrunch article - Mike Butcher, ABC article - Kathryn Diss, Guardian article - Max Opray. All independent journalists working for their respective outlets. How does independence of author and independence of content fail for all these and others mentioned? - hako9 ( talk) 14:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note to closing admin: After claiming that the subject fails ORGIND, the nominator has failed to justify that claim to my above reply. - hako9 ( talk) 16:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Another Note to closing adminHako9 asks for an explanation that none of the sources are independent and points out how the organizations and journalists have no connection with the company. That's half the argument. The other half is whether the *content* is independent. ORGIND states 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.. The Economic Times reference (dated Aug 16th) is entirely based on this announcement dated Aug 12th by the company and was reported in other media also (usually a good hint that something is based on an announcement is when multiple agencies report the same "announcement" as news). So this fails ORGIND. The Hindu reference is based on "a report by the RENeW Nexus project team" and it includes at the very end of the short article a quote from "report co-author and Power Ledger Chairman Dr Jemma Green". Not independent, fails ORGIND. The TechCrunch article is also entirely based on this company announcement and was also reported in other publications, most of which acknowledged their article was based on the announcement (unlike the TechCrunch author but hey, who's surprised, its TechCrunch after all?). The original announcement can be found here on archive.org. Please also note the exact same quote in both articles. This also fails ORGIND. This ZDNet reference is based on an appearance of the company's executive chairman in fron of the Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology. All of the information relating to Power Ledger is attributable to the company executive. No Independent Content, fails ORGIND. Both Yahoo references are based entirely on information provided by the company. The first even has a headline which states "Power Ledger’s Blockchain P2P Energy Trial ‘Technically Feasible,’ It Says in New Report". This isn't rocket science, clearly it isn't "Independent Content" if the company wrote the report. Fails ORGIND. It's a bit more difficult to spot in the second Yahoo article as you actually have to read the first sentence which contains "Australian blockchain energy company Power Ledger has published the findings of a trial". Not Independent Content. Fails ORGIND. HighKing ++ 15:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Changing my !vote to undecided. This article from ET [17] had independent analysis that I presumed was original. But after some digging I found this article [18] which contains large parts in common. This PR [19] that HighKing links above is totally different. Maybe a mistake, but atleast I found my own error. Coming to The Hindu's article HighKing says it should be completely disregarded since it contains a quote at the end by Power Ledger Chairman Dr Jemma Green. We can't disregard the whole article just because it contains one quote or even several from its management, in my opinion. This TechCrunch article [20] and this PR they wrote on medium [21] is not the same, except the last two paras which are. HighKing says, the ZDNet article [22] is entirely attributable to the company executive. I don't find this as true. Although, significant portions are quotes by the co executives but it still has some independent content. The Yahoo articles are BS. I concede. I added them knowing they were re-publications of coin desk and coin rivet. But coindesk is considered generally unreliable/to be avoided per WP:RSP, which I did not know. Overall, I think, after excluding all direct quotations and plagiarism that Indian media is rightly critiqued for, my argument doesn't hold. The journalists like Anshul Joshi from ET should really be ashamed of themselves. - hako9 ( talk) 12:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (Final) I no longer feel confident about voting either side, so I abstain. I still feel that sources provided by PainProf and Cunard (several, if not all) need a better look. - hako9 ( talk) 06:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep other than it having seemingly sufficient sources, this will (maybe) be one of these interesting historical events where blockchain would solve everthing, and then eventually it fades into oblivion. If we delete the article, it will never get created again (as the promoters will be all long gone and moved on to their next scam). Let's keep this for a possibility of future historical relevance. It was once worth $500M and now is nearly gone. I guess there are other cases of this, but I am guessing at wikipedia we will be left with less than a handful 10 years from now, good coffee table reading and adds to breath of wikipedia content. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Jtbobwaysf: you seem to suggest that articles will only get written by "promoters". This is no way to write an encyclopedia. We shouldn't have to rely on "promoters", and we don't. Futhermore, you are considering the "market cap" too much. A "market cap" of $500M doesn't mean that there are sufficient buyers for such an amount, it is simply the last executed price times the total amount. There is no Wikipedia guideline saying that a market cap of X means notability. Wikipedia is also not a consumer magazine, saying that something should have an article because "it could eventually warn someone", is misguided and based on the another assumption of Wikipedias role that there is no guideline on. You're assuming consensus for things that there is no established consensus for. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 13:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
My point was sometimes an amazing fall from grace is interesting and encyclopedic. Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, OJ Simpson, etc became more notable in their fall from grace rather than any fame they might have attained. You tend to bludgeon any vote that opposes your nomination, I have seen it repeatedly here at AfD, it isnt necessary. My point is the article's subject is ICO trash, and sometimes trash can be notable at wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 19:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- BayaniMills τ 08:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    1. Much dismissal about this blockchain company are not considering this specific company's attributes, but rather arguing that it should not be included because of the populous nature of blockchain companies. This seems to be rather irrelevent.
    2. Some dismissal in this deletion discussion refers to claimed acts that Power Ledger would perform; it seems now that the article has now been updated to more accurately include actual trials, projects, agreements, and products and services that are actively in use.
@ BayaniMills: Regarding your point 1: We are considering the sources considering the agreed-upon guidelines mentioned in the deletion nomination. What do you imagine when you say "specific company's attributes"? That is so vague, I don't even know what it is supposed to mean. You're hinting that those attributes are so important, but you're not even mentioning what they actually are. Consensus has been established that many cryptocurrency sources are dubious. So it is not controversial that many of these sources are dismissed.
Regarding your point 2: The accuracy of the article is not the main concern, the main concern of the nominator is the notability of the subject. That the article previously contained less accurate information about "trails, projects, agreements, products and services," does not mean that the subject is notable now that those inaccuracies have been removed. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 13:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:47, 11 August 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". Forget about whether it was published in a "reliable source" or whether in your opinion it is "significant coverage". That's not the complete picture of what is required. There must also be "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 ++ 15:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete- I checked the sources and agree with HighKing and Barkeep. This does not reach NCORP. Reyk YO! 05:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep, but there is a stark disconnect between the characterization of this company in this discussion and the article itself. It is mentioned in the discussion that "Power Ledger is suing the Financial Review in the West Australian Supreme Court"; where is this in the article? The company is discussed here as "a failed scam" and it is said that "an amazing fall from grace is interesting and encyclopedic", but these perspectives are barely noticeable in the article. I agree that remarkable failures are as notable as remarkable successes, and would keep this article if this content was clearly included. BD2412 T 05:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • delete- As of now, I don't think the sources justify NCORP, and I don't like the precedent of keeping articles because they might be notable someday. If the company becomes notable in the future- then it will be worthy of an article, but not yet. Nightenbelle ( talk) 17:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Distributed language

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

There are inappropriate external links; also, where are the references as well? Also, I do not know if this topic is notable and this topic may contain WP:OR. That is why I am putting the article up for discussion. A a s i m 09:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. A a s i m 09:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This article seems to have been previously deleted at this AfD from 2008. This listing should indicate that in the title. AviationFreak 💬 20:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I just removed a whole lot of what appears to be original research added by an IP user in 2011. I also added a couple of potential sources to the 'Further reading' section. Per comments in the 2008 AfD, this seems to be an area of academic research. But per my search for sources today, much of the work seems (seems) to be done by Stephen Crowley, Per Linnell, or scholars within one or two degrees of separation from their labs. Note that there are also "distributed language approaches" in NLP, which I think are unrelated. Cnilep ( talk) 09:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of NGC objects. Salvio 13:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC) reply

NGC 1316C

NGC 1316C (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable galaxy. simbad reference is for NGC 1316, not 1316c anyway. Sam-2727 ( talk) 16:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 ( talk) 16:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 18:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

COVID-19 pandemic in the Commonwealth of Independent States

COVID-19 pandemic in the Commonwealth of Independent States (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Soviet Union ceased to exist nearly three decades before the COVID-19 pandemic, and it doesn't make sense to have an article which consists of a list of ex-Soviet countries and summarises the pandemic in these countries Starzoner ( talk) 21:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep The article is about the pandemic in the nations of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which very much exists today, not about the Soviet Union. Zoozaz1 ( talk) 21:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment When the article was entitled COVID-19 pandemic in the post-Soviet states I had nominated it for deletion based on the same rationale as this nomination. If the article can be improved on how the Commonwealth of Independent States as an entity is dealing with COVID-19 (eg. something along the lines of European Union response to the COVID-19 pandemic) I would support retaining it, but as it stands it's just a list of countries with a short summary of the pandemic in each country. On this basis, we could also have articles on virtually any international entity/regional organisation, for example:
The CIS article or the ones mentioned above shouldn't exist if they don't deal with how the entity/organisation which is mentioned in the title actually dealt with the pandemic. -- Xwejnusgozo ( talk) 22:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
That is a fair point; I'll add a bit about how the organization itself is dealing with it (if I can find anything). Personally, I think we should have articles on how different international organizations are responding, but of course that takes time to create. Zoozaz1 ( talk) 22:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I've added a section specifically on the CIS response. Zoozaz1 ( talk) 23:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm coming from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19#COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_post-Soviet_states, where the mood seems to be very much that the article is not necessary. My own inclinations here lean strongly toward deletion—we barely have enough editors to adequately maintain the continent-level pandemic articles, let alone these sorts of much less distinct articles. The stuff about how the Commonwealth of Independent States is responding to the pandemic is useful, and should find a home somewhere on Wikipedia (do we have something like Response of international organizations to the COVID-19 pandemic?). But the country-specific sections are just a complete WP:CONTENTFORK mess in waiting. I would feel somewhat better if they were turned into excerpts. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 23:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Sdkb, The closest article we have to that would be the Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international relations. I've also gone ahead and changed the country sections to excerpts. Zoozaz1 ( talk) 00:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Empire Island Tower, Abu Dhabi

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

Insufficient notability to sustain article. Project abandoned for at least 10 years. Only cite given is project website, which domain has been allowed to lapse The Anome ( talk) 08:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Farhana Bhat

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

A non notable actress with no indication of satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. She was cast in three films with no major roles. The sources provided are duplicate links to the same article with no wide coverage. A WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing much. Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 07:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 07:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 07:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Zahid Ali (actor)

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

Non Notable Actor clearly fails WP:NACTOR Dtt1 Talk 07:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dtt1 Talk 07:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Dinesh Mehta

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

Non Notable Actor fails WP:NACTOR Dtt1 Talk 07:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dtt1 Talk 07:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Swati Semwal

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

A non Notable Actress having passing mentions and small rolls in movies. fails WP:NACTOR Dtt1 Talk 07:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dtt1 Talk 07:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Matthew Healy of The 1975

AfDs for this article:
Matthew Healy of The 1975 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even 4 years later, there is still no indication Matthew Healy is independently notable from The 1975. Delete or redirect to The 1975. Sro23 ( talk) 07:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sro23 ( talk) 07:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to The 1975, and make it stick. This article's title does not conform to Wikipedia naming conventions, which is a clue that something like this has happened before. In fact, another article dedicated to the singer was already redirected to the band multiple times: see [23] (click the History tab) and [24]. This article is an attempt to get around community consensus with a different title. It appears that these articles were intended to highlight stuff from his personal life, but other editors deleted that material as non-notable. All that's left is a rehash of the band's early history because Healy has done nothing outside of the band. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 13:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt this non-standard title and protect Matthew Healy to maintain it as a redirect: The present article is inadequate, containing copious unsourced WP:BLP material plus a summary of recordings by The 1975. The consensus in 2016 was that the subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO in his own right, so fell under the "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles" provision. Although interviews with the subject continue to be published, there does not seem to be sufficient reason to overturn the previous consensus. AllyD ( talk) 14:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Cirencester Car Club

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

A non notable local car club. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable, secondary, substantial sources and therefore does not meet WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 06:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 06:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 06:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 06:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G4 Ged UK  15:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Zeb Khan (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR References are all TV listing gossip columns in non WP:RS sources. Fancruft. Fiddle Faddle 06:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 06:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 06:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 06:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 06:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Dear User Fiddle I think we should not delete this article because he have reference in Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Actor-Zeb-Khan-who-plays-the-role-of-Tribhuvan-in-Rishton-Se-Badi-Pratha-will-quit-the-show-post-the-generation-leap-of-six-to-seven-years-/articleshow/8440795.cms Darknet Queen 06:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Lets Vote for this Article, and my vote is to Keep Darknet Queen 06:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The Times of India has often been discussed at WP:RSN and been found not to be a reliable source. This is not a ballot, there is no voting here. Your arguments, to be persuasive, must be based upon policy with respect to the article being discussed. You, or others, must prove that the person passes WP:NACTOR for the article to be retained Fiddle Faddle 06:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Ok thanks, Darknet Queen 07:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cleaning/pruning, which is generally supported, can and should be discussed on the article talk page. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Solomon family

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

Probably the most blatant violation of WP:NOTGENEALOGY I've seen on enwiki. Hog Farm Bacon 04:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 04:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 04:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 04:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep but significantly prune - this was raised in May this year and the arguments haven't changed, the nominator needs to ensure they read previous AfDs before trying again. The family is notable and the article is worth keeping, it just needs cleaning up. A significant number of the persons mentioned in this article are notable (e.g. Judah Moss Solomon, Vaiben Louis Solomon, Elias Solomon, Sophia Solomon, Emanuel Solomon, Emanuel Cohen, Vaiben Solomon, Lance Vaiben Solomon and the two Boas brothers). The rest of the article can be pruned, particularly the "unrelated but connected" section. Deus et lex ( talk) 05:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep Prominent family in South Australian history - the colony was founded in 1836, and Emanuel Solomon arrived the following year, and along with other family members, played important roles in business and civic affairs. Bahudhara ( talk) 15:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I find the family interesting not only for the many members who had historical significance in the young colony (and several who are given brief outlines have the potential for interesting articles) but also for the intra-family marriages and the minefield of deceptively similar names, which has proved useful (to this contributor at least) in clearing up several misunderstood relationships. Doug butler ( talk) 14:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is a family tree and is not focused on notability. The notable members have their own articles. -- CutOffTies ( talk) 03:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - CutOffTies, family articles are permissible on Wikipedia, and in this case the family itself is notable. I agree the article needs a significant cleanup (which isn't a matter for AfD) but there is enough there (and enough notable members with their own articles) for a standalone article on the family. Deus et lex ( talk) 06:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment / Reply to Deus et lex The family articles I've seen are about a family with a common thread of notability for being a political dynasty or running a company, etc. In addition to the common thread, the vast majority, if not all the people in other family articles are notable on their own. Maybe there is a common thread here in the article, but it is not in the lead or even the entries themselves. I see some politicians, an early childhood educator, and there are some blue links. The lead does not even attempt to assert why this family is notable other than stating that individual members achieved notability (which is highly questionable, given how many individual entries do not make a claim of notability). The keep but prune argument fails. The article as it is now has no direction, and the editor(s) are mistaking Wikipedia for ancestry.com -- CutOffTies ( talk) 23:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - my view is that your argument is not correct. The family is notable for their political dynasty alone, let alone the other notable members. I think everyone accepts the article needs cleanup, but there is no justification to delete the article. It's perfectly salvageable, and in fact editors seem to be cleaning it up already. AfD is not cleanup. Deus et lex ( talk) 02:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Maybe use one of the many genealogy sites instead of Wikipedia. MaskedSinger ( talk) 14:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - there does not seem to be any valid reason for deleting this article. The proposer has clearly misunderstood WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The latter says: "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." The notable topic is the family, and the family history is being presented for the approved purpose. Yes, the article could be improved.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but prune. There are enough notable people (with articles) in the family to merit retention, but it lists a lot of people whole are wholly NN and who do not link those who are notable. This is a much more substantial article than many of the family articles I have recently seen. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Listify the notables and remove the dross which makes up most of the "article". Perhaps something like Windeyer family (Australia). WWGB ( talk) 06:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The article certainly needs work, but the subject is notable and there appears to be WP:RS to support additional content that would make this more than what it is now. WP:ATD seems appropriate.   //  Timothy ::  talk  18:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:NLIST This list aides our readers in finding this information. Focussed and narrow list. Wm335td ( talk) 02:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Rolf Stahel

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

Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep Talk 09:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Who's Who is a paid service and always has been, since it came out in the 1850's odd. You pay to get a profile. The second point is not particularly notable, since the company operates in the US, with the current drug price climate/scandal is present. It would be notable if it decreased in size, in such a climate, with income from several drugs that generate huge profit. I would suggest its from that and not this person has barely any coverage. scope_creep Talk 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Who says one can buy a profile in Who's Who (UK)? It's article states: "Inclusion in Who's Who, unlike many other similar publications, has never involved any payment by or to the subject, or even any obligation to buy a copy. Inclusion has always been by perceived prominence in public life or professional achievement. Inclusion has therefore come to carry a considerable level of prestige. Paul Levy stated in The Wall Street Journal in 1996 that an entry in Who's Who "really puts the stamp of eminence on a modern British life" Uhooep ( talk) 16:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Certainly it could be changed, but the implication it is a paid profile, and doesn't indicate notability. It is not academic source. scope_creep Talk 18:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
And that is the Wikipedia article you have copied it from, not their site. scope_creep Talk 12:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Ive had a look at the reliable sources noticeboard. The consensus seems to be that Who's Who is notoriously unreliable and will publish inaccuracies that are supplied by the form. Generally speaking the information must be backed up by independent reliable sources. scope_creep Talk 08:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Hence the reason you don't see any bio article using it. I can't remember the last time I saw an entry. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is a much better source. scope_creep Talk 08:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Super-Cycle

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Seems like a very niche and pretty much unreferenced piece of WP:FANCRUFT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Batcave. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 08:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Batcomputer

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Prior AfD is from 2008 when the assumption was that if it is related to something big like the Batman franchise 'there must be sources'. 12 years later, this is still a piece of WP:FANCRUFT, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 21:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Batcave. A few paragraphs in that article seems sufficient for this topic. Rhino131 ( talk) 04:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep When one actually searches for sources, one immediately finds items like this. I just tried it and, while Siri started rambling about the Condiment King, it doesn't seem that she will still do the voice. Another way of getting your own version is detailed here. And, of course, it's covered in works like the Encyclopedia of Television Subjects, Themes and Settings and The Essential Batman Encyclopedia. The nomination's claims are not credible. Andrew🐉( talk) 11:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    • The Metro is a tabloid not much better than Daily Mail (even owned by Daily Mail and General Trust, and anyway just see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Metro - Metro is declared an unreliable source), and oh, this is hardly in-depth coverage, comparing something to Batcomputer in a title is effectively the extent (so even if the source was reliable, the article itself is useless for GNG purposes). And, of course, the other examples cited by David are mentions in passing and/or pure plot summaries, some of them published by the same IP owner as the comics, so not independent. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
      • The story about the Siri/Batcomputer is reliable because, of course, it appears in numerous other sources such as Games Radar; San Francisco Chronicle; Manchester Evening News; NME; &c. And, I've checked it out myself. So that reliability canard is a crock. The objections to those encyclopedias is likewise ridiculous. The coverage of the Batcomputer is not a passing mention; it's the entire point of those works to provide such details. If you don't like what's said then that's WP:IDONTLIKEIT contrary to core policy. It's not the nominator's job to censor topics that they don't like. I'm fine with the sources and the topic and so my !vote stands. Andrew🐉( talk) 15:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, or redirect to batcave. The batcomputer has a place in history as an early, high viewership depiction of what a supercomputer was physically like in the 1960s and science fiction that would become reality in the 21st century. See the top of my user page where I reflect on its impact on my life, and my involvement in Wikipedia. The batcomputer has less, if any, cultural significance in the modern films. However there seems to be a scarcity of reliable sources. I think what is there could be cut down to statements for which sources can be found, and assuming that doesn't leave us with much of an article it should be merged into the batcave article. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 13:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect or delete. Nothing to establish notability. Even if there happens to be anything commenting on this topic specifically, the parent article is in dire need of those sources. TTN ( talk) 21:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect or delete due to lack of coverage in third party sources. This topic isn't independently notable, but probably fits in another notable batman article. Shooterwalker ( talk) 02:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Batcave - Not independently notable. Dark knight 2149 05:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect: to the Batcave article. Any claims that there is significant coverage in reliable sources of the subject is just short of dementia. Ravenswing 08:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Batcave per above. The coverage in reliable sources is not extensive enough to support an independent article, but it is certainly a valid search term that could be used to redirect to the broader topic. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Batcave. Nothing here can't be covered there. The only good reference has been copied over. I'm not sure what would be merged, but any interested parties will have access to the history. - 2pou ( talk) 18:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Gaby Melian

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

Fails WP:GNG. None of the article's current references constitute significant, external coverage in reliable sources, search for new sources only found passing references in articles. Morgan695 ( talk) 04:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Given that the subject is non-notable and that both you and the page author have already advocated for deletion, I'm willing to exercise IAR and save the community some time. Like I said, you're welcome to insist on having this discussion, but I don't think it'll change the eventual outcome (deletion). - FASTILY 21:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham ( talk) 17:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There has been plenty of discussion and it is clear that there is no consensus to delete the page in question. As a procedural point, note that the nominator cast a !vote indicating that they were no longer pressing for deletion and so that can be considered as a withdrawal. Whether the page should be merged or kept separate for improvement is undecided but this issue is best pursued by those interested in editing the article(s) to take the matter forward. The main issue with that is likely to be familiarity with the Korean language, which is likely to be needed to understand the best sources for this topic. Note that the Korean Wikipedia has a separate and longer article and so that should be a starting point for further work. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉( talk) 22:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT. Does not present encyclopedic content WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT.   //  Timothy ::  talk  04:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  04:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  04:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Its a national government agency of South Korea established by legislation. The article is pretty weak, but that is not the question. There is plenty of coverage in Korean. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reply and Question: Hi Rathfelder, does the coverage rise above WP:ROUTINE coverage of events and address the subject directly and in detail (rather than primarily addressing another subject/event, in which the agency was simply noted as being involved), so that no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH is needed to extract the content? WP:GNG In other words is the agency itself a principle topic of the reference (doesn't have to be the sole topic). if you can provide references, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination; I don't wish to have a notable article unnecessarily deleted.   //  Timothy ::  talk  14:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I dont speak Korean. But given that this was established by legislation and manages a very substantial budget it would be very surprising if it was not discussed in quite a lot of detail. And I would suggest that national government agencies are generally notable. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't think all national government agencies are notable by default of being national agencies and this one seems to lack in-depth coverage of it in multiple reliable sources. Even the Korean article about it is un-sourced. Which makes me think all the more that it's probably not notable. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 10:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reply: Where is this "longstanding consensus that all government services of major countries are notable"? is it in a policy or guideline? I can't find it in WP:n. Where has the community decided that this "consensus" overrides WP:N? You really need to start basing your !votes on guidelines and sources, not opinions and feelings.   //  Timothy ::  talk  19:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe if you'd been here longer you'd have a better knowledge of what is and is not consensus. Not everything is written down. Not everything is a policy or guideline. That's why we have such policies as WP:IAR and WP:BURO (very unpopular with the more rules-bound editors, who like to claim that they don't apply in their particular case, I know, but policies nonetheless). Much has been determined over many AfDs over many years and those of us who've been here and contributed to them for many years just know what is and is not consensus, largely because we've helped frame much of it. To then be told by someone who's been here much less time how to contribute to AfDs (with the suggestion that that person is much more knowledgeable about the workings of Wikipedia than we are) becomes more than faintly patronising. I have stated that it is longstanding consensus that all government services of major countries are notable because that is indeed the case. I don't need to see it written down simply because I have personally been involved in many AfDs where it has been determined. Unlike some editors, I am perfectly comfortable with the use of consensus rather than some set-in-stone "rule". I don't always agree with that consensus, but I am happy to go along with it because I believe in a consensus-based, rather than rule-based, project. Neither do I believe that longstanding consensus changes because a small number of editors who don't like that consensus (or don't understand that not everything has to be written down to be true) suddenly start contributing to AfDs and patronising those of us who've been contributing to them for a very long time. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reply: I'm sorry you feel patronized, I didn't bother to read your userpage, but longevity does not confer deference. You seem to understand WP:IAR as the rule and not the exception, which is a recipe for chaos. It also undermines the principle of !vote - "communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important." - by reducing reasoning to a subjective opinion or reference to an unwritten alleged historical consensus or gnostic wisdom. It is impossible to reason or debate such an unwritten claim and risks turning a debate based on evidence into a poll based on opinion. It is also a convenient way to dismiss the arguements of other editors with less time on Wikipedia by simply claiming something exists without evidence. Finally, even if something may have been so in the past, this does not make it automatically correct, nor does it mean it will be considered correct in the future.
I will ask you to consider WP:AFDFORMAT - "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive.". Based on this I ask that you engage in constructive discussion on whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies.
I'm far from perfect, it's easy to point out my mistakes and I acknowledge them freely, and I know I'm still learning. But I am good a self-reflection and correction when I become conscious of a fault. Perhaps there is a lesson in that for others.   //  Timothy ::  talk  00:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I think once again you misunderstand. I am not in any way suggesting that you should show me deference. Longevity in any field of activity does, however, imply knowledge and experience. I certainly do not use IAR as "the rule and not the exception", as you would know if you read my contributions (I'm not suggesting you should, merely pointing out that fact). But some topics are to me (and many others) clearly notable, whether or not they satisfy some narrow "rule", and IAR merely points out that such "rules" should not be slavishly followed to the detriment of the project. That is why we have such notability guidelines as WP:POLITICIAN, WP:MILUNIT, WP:SOLDIER, WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GEOLAND, which may sometimes conflict with WP:GNG. That is why we have WP:AFDOUTCOMES. Precedent and consensus, formulated at AfD and elsewhere, is important. And my point was that if you'd been here as long as I have you'd know that. Not agreeing with another editor's opinion is one thing, but essentially telling them they don't know what they're talking about because they expressed it and that they therefore know nothing about Wikipedia and should learn how it works (and find a mentor to teach them!) is entirely another. May I suggest you simply allow other editors to state their opinions at AfD without constantly challenging them and insisting that they adhere to "the rules". -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • This organisation is clearly central to understanding the working of healthcare systems in South Korea. That is why government organisations of this kind have assumed notability. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Its a national government agency of South Korea. Wm335td ( talk) 01:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No evidence that this meets the GNG beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. That being said, rather than a patronizing and uncivil lecture (especially one citing AFDOUTCOMES when this particular "consensus" is found nowhere within it), I likewise would like to see proof that a consensus exists exempting every governmental agency, no matter its size or scope, from standard notability guidelines. (After over 15 years and participating in several thousand AfDs, one might refrain from hauling out the shut-up-noob card.) Ravenswing 15:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • There are similar organisations in most countries with developed health systems. They may be quite low profile but they are very significant. Rathfelder ( talk) 11:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Ministry of Health and Welfare (South Korea). I'm surprised this has not been proposed as an option in this discussion. The agency carries out a function of the Ministry. A notable function, of course, but still just a function of the Ministry. Since both articles are rather short at the moment, merge them unless and until content and sourcing is provided for this specific agency to justify breaking it out into a separate article again. BD2412 T 04:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Billboard Top Contemporary Christian Albums number ones of the 1990s

List of Billboard Top Contemporary Christian Albums number ones of the 1990s (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Number ones on a non-notable chart. Boleyn ( talk) 10:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are other christian websites about christian billboard albums i.e the christianpost.com and christianbeat.org not just billboard/billboard magazine and radio. DanTheMusicMan2 ( talk) 11:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:LISTN lists need to establish WP:N by being"discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". No indication of this.   //  Timothy ::  talk  14:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because this seems to fail WP:LISTN. Since the subject doesn't appear to be talked about as a group or set anywhere except for in primary sources. Plus, Wikipedia isn't a directory. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 08:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as Billboard charts are usually notable and this one should be in terms of christian music reliable sources. There are also plenty of blue links so it is a useful index page, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Per WP:CHARTS, "a chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics: 1) It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes...Billboard magazine... 2) It covers sales or broadcast outlets from multiple sources." See also WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS. pburka ( talk) 22:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
    • FYI: this inclusion criteria is for what's allowed in chart tables for song and album articles (in which Billboard would be an independent source), not for lists of number ones (for which Billboard is a primary and often times the only source). That's not a !vote from me for or against this particular list. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 23:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The chart's considered notable enough for its own article; a list from it meets LISTN. Ravenswing 23:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Marty Phillips

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSINGER. I take it criterion 1—[h]as been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself—is the only relevant criterion here. The best I could find for coverage was this, which is a history of a single church in South Carolina (and may not even be about him). The lone reference in the article does exist, but there is only a passing mention of Phillips in it. As for "What a Meeting in the Air", his best-known tune, there's this, which doesn't look like enough to me. I can't think of a good redirect or merge target, nor can I verify the claim that he was honored at the Old Fashioned Gospel Singing and Musical Convention in 1991. (And I doubt that would confer notability even if it were true.) Notability tagged since 2014. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the one source is about a company started by his aunt's husband, that he eventually inherited after his wife's death. It is about the company with only passing mention of him. This is not even close to enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Marie-Christine Lévesque

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

Biography of a recently deceased writer, which literally just states that she lived and died without even attempting to document that she ever achieved anything as a writer that would get her over WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they and their works exist -- the notability test for a writer requires evidence of distinctions, such as noteworthy literary awards (of which she has none) or significant analytical attention from literary critics -- but apart from the recent blip of death coverage, I'm struggling to find any other sources that are actually about her in her own right, as opposed to briefly mentioning her existence in coverage of her more notable husband. And for a francophone writer from Quebec, the lack of an article on the French Wikipedia -- where you'd expect editors to be on the ball about a genuinely notable French-language writer -- isn't an encouraging sign. Bearcat ( talk) 17:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment: Yes I was doubting about creating this stub. But I also saw this radio interview ( hear here) and an online interview ( here). She is co-author of many of her husbands books. SportsOlympic ( talk) 17:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Interviews, which represent the subject speaking about herself in the first person, don't count as support for notability — they can be used for supplementary verification of facts after a person has already been shown as notable enough, but because they represent the subject speaking about herself and are thus subject to all the same problems as self-published sources, they don't count as data points toward the question of whether she has enough sources to be considered notable in the first place. We need to see independent sources analyzing her significance as a writer in the third person, not just things she's said about herself, in order to establish her notability as a writer. And by the same token, the mere fact that she coauthored works with her husband isn't an instant notability freebie in and of itself — we require independent sources analyzing the significance of those works to make her notable for them. Bearcat ( talk) 00:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Weak keep Merge - While it is always sad to hear someone died rather young, WP is not a memorial site. Because she co-authored many books with her partner Serge Bouchard who is notable (and won significant awards), I suggest merging them since some of the sources clearly state that they wrote books together. I did a google search and did not find anything on her that was significant. Netherzone ( talk) 14:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply
After more consideration, I am changing my !vote to weak keep from merge. There is no evidence that her contributions to books co-authored with her husband were not equal to his. Netherzone ( talk) 13:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply
She would still have to meet the whole "in-depth" thing though. Which she doesn't. A brief line that says she co-authored some of his books in an article that's not about her isn't enough for it unfortunately. Blame "the media" for not covering her as much as they should have and for giving her husband more coverage. Chalk it up to "systemic bias" (which it probably is) or whatever, but that's not on us. We still need to follow the notability guidelines either way. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 00:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While this is leaning keep there is enough variety of perspectives that a relist might make consensus clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I recall Sue Gardner getting quite animated when the subject of deletionism came up and she expressed outrage and incredulity that an article about a Canadian author should have been deleted. Anyway, this seems to be a blatant case of WP:IGNORINGATD because the worst we would do is merge to Serge Bouchard. But merging women into articles about their husbands is frowned upon and, as we have a good picture of the subject to showcase, we should leave this page for development per WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉( talk) 11:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
People aren't exempted from having to have reliable source coverage to demonstrate the significance and encyclopedia-worthiness of their accomplishments, just because somebody uploaded a photograph of them — and writers aren't handed an automatic notability freebie just because their work exists, if independent third-party coverage analyzing their work in reliable sources doesn't. Bearcat ( talk) 18:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I found this coverage of her: [26], and this [27], as cited in the article, focuses on her (contrary to comments above, this citation is not an interview with Marie-Christine Lévesque, but a reporter writing about Levesque and quoting her spouse, who is talking about her.) The article fulfils C3 of WP:AUTHOR for coverage of her work here [28] and as cited above by pburka. She fulfils C4 of WP:AUTHOR because she won Le Prix Victor-Barbeau [29] and also cited by pburka above. I disagree with the merge with her partner. A person doesn't lose notability because their work was co-authored by someone more notable. If she authored these works by herself, she would have enough notability. Z1720 ( talk) 20:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
I've added those citations to the article. Netherzone ( talk) 20:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. czar 07:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Monique Wadsted

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

Reviewed as part of effort to review the longest wp:notability tagged articles (In this case has been tagged for over 11 years. No GNG suitable coverage of her in the listed references plus I was unable to find any in a search, not even medium length coverage of her. Appears that she has done a lot of corporate legal work, including on some larger and higher profile cases. North8000 ( talk) 03:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note below that my opinion is "Keep" but I am not withdrawing the AFD. North8000 ( talk) 01:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I just cleaned up the refs and tbh I'm surprised it remained tagged this long. I think the article speaks for itself: she's apparently a go-to lawyer in a bunch of high-profile cases, often dealing with digital media and copyright. The article in svwiki is longer but appears worse-sourced. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 03:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Cattle Decapitation#Discography. (non-admin closure) Dps04 ( talk) 04:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Human Jerky

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

Non-notable album. The AllMusic entry is just a track listing [30], and just about everything else I can find is user-generated, aside from three sentences in [31]. Besides that, I'm getting a lot of hits about some guy in Montana who was arrested for selling literal human jerky. Related AfDs are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homovore, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ten Torments of the Damned, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/¡Decapitacion! (2nd nomination). Hog Farm Bacon 02:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 08:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Sports Flashes

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

Fails NCORP and GNG. The sources are your routine funding announcements, acquisition news and non-independent press release type of articles. The article reeks of COI editing with its promotional and mostly unsourced blocks of text. M4DU7 ( talk) 22:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 22:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 22:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 22:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 22:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 22:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 ( talk) 22:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Interviews, funding news, acquisition deals and product launch announcements, etc. are not sufficient to establish notability according to WP:CORPDEPTH. The claim about being the "world's biggest sports radio" was made by the company MD and needs an independent source for verification. M4DU7 ( talk) 02:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

HarvardScience

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

No evidence this was a notable website during its existence. No secondary sourcing to be found. StarM 01:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Ramanaw Mallam

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

Non-notable person who is yet to direct a film. No sources. TamilMirchi ( talk) 01:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 01:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 01:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 01:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Stoutenburg, California

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

Another California place sourced only to Durham's book of placename origins. I can find no other references to the place, and I'm not comfortable with him as the only source. Mangoe ( talk) 01:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Madhuchanda

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

All of the information in the article is unsourced, because sources do not exist. There should not be an article for this person. TamilMirchi ( talk) 00:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 00:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 00:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi ( talk) 00:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to ArchitectsAlliance. There is consensus not to keep the page. Redirects are cheap and anyone may make one in the usual course of editing, I go for delete and redirect. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 08:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

X Condominium

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

A run-of-the-mill condo in Toronto, built in 2010, that doesn't appear to meet WP:NBUILD. There are dozens exactly like it. Being a "homage" to Mies van der Rohe does not, in my view, make this building notable. Brief mention here, but that's about it. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 00:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 00:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( talk) 00:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_August_11&oldid=974626058"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE