The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Only found a single Dove review and a couple of mentions. Isn’t even on Rotten Tomatoes, so the likelihood of finding actual professional reviews of this thing is slim.
Dronebogus (
talk)
23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. As this is a short direct-to-video documentary, it's understandable that it hasn't received much coverage in reliable sources, but with so little coverage I don't think that this film can be considered notable per
WP:NFILM. --
Metropolitan90(talk)23:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reviews in Deseret Times, Meridian Magazine, The Dove Organisation and other coverage which has been added to the article since nomination so that
WP:GNG is passed in my view,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't seem to pass
WP:NRIVALRY; whilst the clubs are close to each other geographically, they have only met 14 times. There don't seem to be any sources at all discussing this rivalry.
Spiderone21:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Concur as above. Ok they've played each other 14 times, and at a stretch it might have been a rivalry. But, there simply aren't sources to support an article, and certainly nothing to meet
WP:GNG. --
Hammersoft (
talk)
15:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
ENEA_AB#Products, where it is mentioned. There is some secondary sourcing available, such as a paragraph in this
book, but I was unable to find enough sourcing to satisfy notability requirements. The project is already mentioned with a sentence in the company article, which seems due weight. Hence with basic verifiability and a good target, redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion that, per our policy
WP:ATD, is preferred over deletion. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}17:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep This page was created by me - I have no affiliations to the company. It was made because the company is expanding in the market, discussed frequently on social medias such as YouTube and demonstrates a sustainable approach. Since the nomination for deletion, I have removed unnecessary excessive praise for the company and sourced secondary articles and continue to do so. I published the page, with the intention to add further information on reviewing. This is allowed into consideration for improving rather than deleting an article, as the article was recently created and more time could be allowed to develop the article
WP:BEFORE.
AmaranthinePsithurism (
talk)
23:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
discussed frequently on social medias such as YouTube is not a notability criterion that any notability guide endorses. It is worth noting in the AfD that the company has been running an influencer campaign in YouTube with product giveaways. The YouTube coverage is not "organic", but paid for. We should almost never accept YouTube as a source, but ESPECIALLY not in this case.
Vexations (
talk)
13:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete G11 level spam sourced to primary sources and press releases. To be fair, there is
one reliable independent source here... which ranked it 69/100 in a list of 100 notebooks. Not exactly an indication of encyclopedic notability.
Spicy (
talk)
15:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete There is no coverage in reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to her as a person. Instead, there are many mentions in low quality sources that report that she is a topless model with an excellent physique, at least ten years ago.
Cullen328Let's discuss it05:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article uses youtube videos, streaming sites and some other trivial mentions as references. I think these are not WP:RS. This article should be deleted.
UserNumber (
talk)
19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. The first reference is a dead link to a blog allegedly demonstrating that one of his singles was on rotation on BBC Radio Northampton, but even this would fail
WP:NMUSICIAN, as it's not a national radio station.
~dom Kaos~ (
talk)
10:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: fails
WP:GNG and
WP:MUSICBIO. I just can't find enough evidence of serious notability – he might well have a following in UK Asian music but he doesn't appear to have attracted major attention as yet. I seriously doubt that his song was "on rotation" on BBC Radio Northampton – like most BBC local radio stations, its daytime programming is mostly news, talk shows and phone-ins, with some coverage of local sports teams in action and what little music there is, is mainstream chart music and oldies. There is one evening show per week dedicated to Asian music... my guess is that the song got one play on this show, but it certainly wouldn't have been on a daytime playlist. As an aside, About Us: The Ultimate Love Story maybe could have been bundled into this nomination, but will have to go to a separate AfD... I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion as there's an assertion of an independent review.
Richard3120 (
talk)
16:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
GNIS indicates a census code of U6, which indicates a geographic point of some sort without legal recognition. This means that U6-coded places will almost never meet
WP:GEOLAND.
State Historical Society calls it a "post office and rural community" founded in 1921, but the 1930 topo shows exactly one building there, making the meaning of "rural community" unclear. Off the topos by 1981. Not on the 1986 topo. USGS apparently doesn't know exactly where it is, as the 2015 topo has it on the wrong side of the river. One statement on the SHS source: the different counties were written by different authors. Some of the authors clearly discriminate between communities and post offices, like the person who wrote the Cedar County one, but the Madison County author doesn't seem to have made this distinction. No evidence this way anything more than a rural post office.
Hog FarmBacon18:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This school doesn't seem notable. The only sources in the article are primary. Except for a dead link. Plus, a BEFORE only turned up a few trivial (both in the subjects and depth of coverage) news articles about it. Secondary schools aren't inherently notable. So, this seems to fail both
WP:GNG and
WP:NORG. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
05:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment.
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8], and there are more, don't seem trivial (all in Portuguese). However, most of them arguably do fall under
WP:1EVENT (assuming, for a moment, that 1EVENT can be about schools as opposed to people). Basically, there have been some financial irregularities at this (private) school, which have been the subject of substantial controversy. There were even protests at the Portuguese embassy in Luanda about it. I don't necessarily think this gets it past GNG, but it's not nothing. Perhaps those with better Portuguese than mine would be able to comment.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
06:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Just a general comment, whatever the case is about it being a single event thing or not, all of the sources except for one are from two news outlets and sources from the same outlet only count as one source for the sake of notability. Also, interestingly two of the articles from Sapo were printed on the same day and one of them is anonymous for some reason. Which seems a little sketchy. The fifth source is about how schools in Portugal, including this one, are dealing with Chronovirus. Which I would call trivial. One the single event thing, for me it usually comes to if there is sustained coverage and if the coverage is not mainly sensationalism. It's hard to tell if either is true in this case. One article (and really the topic in general) is about how the parents are in dept to the school and I'd say that's sensationalism because it's about the parents complaining about tuition hikes, but there's evidence it ever went anywhere legal and people being upset about something isn't notable on it's own IMO. Plus, maybe they just don't manage their money well and want to blame the school for it because the news was doing an article about it. There's no way to tell, but "outrage" (transient or otherwise) doesn't qualify as notable as far as I see it. Especially when that's all there seems to be. I'm still open to this maybe being notable for what it's covered for in the articles though if something more substantial can be found about it, or things can be clarified. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
07:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I find it weird that anyone would find this not notable. There are four foreign language secondary
Category:Schools in Luanda, this one, Escola Português de Luanda, appears to be the oldest, and the largest. We don't have an article for the Colégio Português de Luanda, or the Colégio S. Francisco de Assis – Luanda Sul all of which are verified on Portuguese Education Ministry site. We do have one for the smaller
Luanda International School. A notability test is about potential, it is not the same as a GA review. --
ClemRutter (
talk)
13:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Being the oldest X of whatever doesn't automatically make something notable. Also, notability isn't determined by the "potential" for something to be notable, whatever that means (everything could "potentially" be notable), its determined by the topic having multiple in-depth reliable sources that discuss it. That's it. Not how long its been around, it being the first of something, or anything else.
Adamant1 (
talk)
18:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, sources that discuss it with significant coverage, not necessarily cited currently in the article or available via a Google search. You are nominating the top schools in Africa for deletion, but ignoring the many run-of-the-mill schools in Western Anglophone countries that have articles. I'm trying to stretch the assumption of good faith here, but I can't help feeling that there is an unsavoury agenda here. That an article is about an African subject, and Africa is not covered online as well as other continents, doesn't mean that a proper search for sources shouldn't be undertaken before deletion nomination.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
18:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Where did I say they needed to be currently cited in the article or available via a Google search? Obviously their existence has to be variable outside of vague comments that there might be some "because it's an old school brah," because that's not how things in Wikipedia works. So, if you want to make vague comments without providing evidence as to their truthfulness this isn't the place to do it. I could really give a crap if your evidence if a Google search or not though. Same goes for your comment that I'm nominating "the top schools in Africa." There's zero indication from anywhere that they are (because there aren't any damn sources that say are or anything else about them for that matter) and I'm not going to just take some random persons word for it. Again, that's not how Wikipedia works. Also, your criticism that I'm ignoring "run-of-the-mill schools in Western Anglophone countries" is obviously just more bullshit. Since I've done plenty of nominations for schools in "western Anglophone countries" (whatever the hell that means). It's not like I have to though. I can nominate whatever the hell I want, that's located wherever the hell I feel like it being located. That said, you'd have zero way of knowing what I've nominated or not unless you were looking through my edit history. If you were I'd 100% consider that
WP:HARASS. Just like I consider your message attacking me for this nomination as harassment. If you think I'm specifically targeting African's with my AfDs though, feel free to report me for it. Otherwise, piss off and go take a long walk off a short pier or something. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
19:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for confirming what a nasty piece of work you are. I simply look at what has been proposed or nominated for deletion, which I do without regard to who has proposed or nominated deletion, but then find that a significant number are proposed or nominated by you. That is not harassment, but simply an observation that you are responsible. Just start looking for sources rather than assuming that everything is non-notable that doesn't currently cite sources that you would like. And if you really don't have the English comprehension to know what means then you are not qualified to be editing an English-language encyclopedia.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
19:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I've been an editor for like 5 years and have nominated a couple of thousand articles across many subjects during that time. Including plenty of articles about schools all over the world. The problem is that your cherry picking a few recent examples to attack my motivations instead of basing your argument on the notability of the subject. Which is what AfDs are about. Your the one being nasty by making this personal when there's zero reason to. That said, people nominate multiple articles having to do with the same subject all the time. That's just how things work. For instance there's been a bunch of AfDs about geographical locations in California the last month. The people doing the nominations aren't specifically "targeting California." The rules for the notability of secondary schools was changed recently so a lot aren't notable anymore. Which is why I'm doing a bunch of nominations. It's just easier to keep track of things by doing them based on their geographical location. That's it. I really give a crap about Africa or anything related to it outside of that though. Your complete ignorance about the process and how this works doesn't equate to me intentionally targeting none ""Western Anglophone countries."
As far as "Western Anglophone countries" goes, obviously I know what the term means. I just think it's a semi-racist, ethnocentric, and totally ignorant troupe to divide the world into "Anglophone Westerns" and none "Anglophones Westerns." Since it has zero basis in reality. Especially when it comes to Africa countries. For instance 10% of the population of South Africa is whites of Germanic decent. It would be a completely garbage argument to claim that someone is targeting anything specific if they nominate something related to Egypt and the Congo just because they aren't "Western Anglophone countries" to. Just because both are in Africa doesn't mean they have anything in common or that classifying them as none ""Western Anglophone countries" has any meaning or usefulness outside of Klan rally. Your the one being nasty by claiming it does or that I'm being motivated by it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by chalking the whole thing up to ignorance on your part though and end it there. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
20:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While the subject may have coverage in some topic-specific media, a 14-year-old Formula 4 driver is hardly notable enough for encyclopaedic inclusion. Hundreds, if not low thousands of drivers compete in Formula 4 and other junior series every year and many have received greater coverage off of more notable achievements. I don't see what qualifies Noda as notable enough for an article other than a short burst of attention at her first Danish F4 race and a handful of articles commentating on her aspirations, which does not meet the requirement for
significant coverage, and most certainly does not meet the
motorsport notability guidelines. 5225C (
talk •
contributions)
08:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
There are very few young female motorsport drivers. The deletion of this page, which highlights an incredible young prospect who is already achieving great success, is tantamount to the suppression of gender equality that is widespread across the motorsport community. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MrPaperwings (
talk •
contribs)
15:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep or Merge - I think this article is notable, though I recognize it could be seen as fringe, in which case a merge would be appropriate. I've found these articles (
123) and updated the page accordingly. AviationFreak💬15:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. On a second look, I found that the parade is the subject of a plaque conferred by the
Ontario Heritage Trust (see
[9]). I put a pic of the plaque in the article. These plaques are fairly common, so I don't think it's necessarily enough to keep a standalone article, but thought I'd mention in any event.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
19:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete a Youtuber - I see a few blog posts about this person, which are negative and poorly-sourced (so I won't link them). I don't see sufficient coverage for an article.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
02:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia is not youtube. If you cannot find any sourcing on someone anywhere except youtube they are very unlikely to be notable. The only times this does not apply is if you have done throughly ineffective searching or if someone has deliberately destroyed all the sources on the individual not on youtube. Not that sourcing does not have to be online.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - The name was familiar so I decided to look them up. I have also found the OC Weekly article, as well
an album review on Metal.de and
Sputnikmusic. These are reliable sources. The rest of the results are the usual junk like databases, social media, streaming sites, blogs, retail sites and concert sites (the concert sites only state that "they have no upcoming concerts for this artist" - that's right because they split up).
GhostDestroyer100 (
talk)
18:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - I see the albums aren't notable on their own, and would fit better on the band page. Regarding the band, is it expected that a band gradually loses notability, and has its page deleted? It's difficult to find evidence 10 years later, when much of it was probably in print-only magazines. It looks like there was a
tour in 2007, following an
album charting in the Deutsche Alternative Charts, although
de:wiki doesn't like that chart. A German fan might have better sources, i.e. old magazines.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an unsourced article. It makes a claim that her grandfather was the "king of Rome", I think this might mean the head of the SUltanate of Rum, which was in what is today Turkey, but I am not sure. It lakes sources, and is written in a clearly unencyclopedic style. My search for sources just showed up a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors, which shows we really need to stop allowing random creation of articles and start forcing all articles through the Articles for Creation process
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as completely unsourced. Since this article is apparently about a Christian woman who converted to Islam and is written from a Muslim perspective, the claim that her grandfather was "king of Rome" may mean that he was the emperor of the
Byzantine Empire, which was traditionally referred to as Rome in Arabic, and for that matter was called the Roman Empire by its own Greek-speaking inhabitants in that era. --
Metropolitan90(talk)18:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect and perhaps check the other two articles this editor created in case they are similar duplicates (am on phone, can't do it myself).
PamD05:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
When this was a draft it was declined by
Calliopejen1 (
talk·contribs) they helpfully left the author this feedback: "In the references, I see people citing polls conducted by API, along with interviews of API's director. These don't support notability. What we need are people writing about API." Regardless, the draft has been moved into mainspace, bypassing the Articles for Creation process, without addressing this concern. I have read through the references and none of them constitute in depth, independent, secondary coverage about the Institute. Therefore it fails to meet the
WP:NORG criteria and should be deleted.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
12:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm very sure this organization is highly notable with no any iota of doubt. Looking at the information used, there is no any promotional sentences, and the information is directly from the website where I acknowledged it there, and the references used are from highly independent reliable sources. As one editor who reviewed earlier said, he want to see people talking about API, there are numerous independent newspapers that talked about it which I used in the reference.
You have stated that the article is "highly notable" without specifically detailing how it meets any notability criteria. Do not confuse notability with importance. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
01:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete - This draft reads like an information brochure published by a non-profit organization. Not every non-profit is notable. This is typical of non-profit drafts that I would decline in AFC.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
07:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Africa polling institute article has more than ten references with full coverage of secondary independent sources. And there is not any promotional sentences or words. So for that reason. API is notable to be in wikipedia. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Abbas Kwarbai (
talk •
contribs)
09:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Abbas Kwarbai: You continue to misunderstand the difference between a newspaper article mentioning Africa Polling Institute (such as that API has produced a report on a recent poll) and being about API, such as the history of the Institute, the impact it has had on society, etc. An interview with someone who talks about the Institute doesn't count towards notability because the person is not
independent.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
09:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete Lacks suitable sources to pass GNG which also means that the content is just a self description. I said "weak" because all factors considered, it wouldn't be too crazy to give it a pass. North8000 (
talk)
01:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keepno consensus. General consensus after two relists despite low participation. Post closure comment- IMO this shouldn't have been nominated if there was an active merge proposal on the article.
(non-admin closure)Nightfury20:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. What a barbaric, stupid proposal. No case is made for this term failing the GNG, and none can be made. This is a standard, well-documented term. Now while some editors may believe that an encyclopedia is not the place to provide accurate, useful information to parents and family members trying to deal with the many problems of intellectually disabled children and adults, as opposed to the core encyclopedic function of presenting semifictional promotional biographies of professional wrestlers, I do not. And I have no respect for the opinion of those who do. Merger appears appropriate, but should not be discussed in the deletion context.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (
talk)
18:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Bearian's !vote seems to makes no sense because the page always seems to have been separate and there doesn't seem to be anything in its history which would warrant salting.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
17:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The topic is notable, being discussed in detail in numerous sources including Percussion Pedagogy and Teaching Percussion. As the sources seem to use the current title for the Vibraphone in particular, burying the topic under some other title concerning techniques for other types of instrument would be disruptive.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
17:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete the house he is part of was in power for 18 years, they had been out of power for 93 years when he was born. Thus, they had been out of power, when he was born, for over 4 times the time they had been in power. This is an extreme of deposed monarchy cruft.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep French Wikipedia has a well sourced detailed article which clearly demonstrates notability. In time hopefully that content can be translated for the English Wikipedia article. -
dwc lr (
talk)
17:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
delete The French article says much the same as the English, except that it goes into more details of the intra-family spat over his status, which is of no real world import, and a bit more about his employment, which does not seem notable. Other than that, it's all royal-pretender genealogy.
Mangoe (
talk)
20:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Article does not meet GNG or BASIC. Since this is a BLP, its important to strictly follow sourcing and notability guidelines. //
Timothy :: talk01:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - the clear failure of
WP:GNG should take precedence over scraping by on
WP:NFOOTY; as above, the kanji looks slightly different so probably not the same player so no evidence of SIGCOV
Spiderone10:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - The articles source shows he was substituted in at minute 64, so he meets
WP:NFOOTBALL. Not sure if
WP:GNG is met, but can give benefit of the doubt as sourcing could be hard to find (since they're likely 9 year old Japanese articles)
JumpytooTalk01:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment -
User:Hog Farm - This wasn't a valid
A9 at the time that I nominated it, because A9 is a non-notable work for a musician who does not have an article. The
autobiography of the author was tagged for
A7 at the time, so it was an article, until it wasn't. Thank you for adding the A9 when you could.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
18:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete and comment: the editor is also creating articles for other albums, with exactly the same issues of no context for the track listing. Some of them are simply the track listings for deluxe versions of previously released albums, which are already included in the main album article, e.g.
Changes Deluxe (Justin Bieber album).
Richard3120 (
talk)
17:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD, for no stated reason. Rationale was "Farcical longevity claim, very little sourcing, and almost entirely consists of utterly mundane details. Having one painting supposedly depicting the subject isn't close to the threshold of notability." The German article isn't much better, and most of the article is completely irrelevant noise; who cares if a guy made wooden boxes?
The Blade of the Northern Lights (
話して下さい)
16:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Sources check out and are actually quite cautious about claims of his old age. One of the sources
[10] goes into quite a bit of detail about the involvement of
Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria it the care of Adner. The king sent a doctor and insisted on daily reports of Adler's condition. After his Adner's death, the king paid for his funeral. Somebody obviously cared a great deal about a guy who made wooden boxes.
Vexations (
talk)
12:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Same at the others put up for deletion recently, this is an unnecessary offshoot article born from splitting out
overly in-depth plot information rather than trimming it to fit into the main article.
WP:GNG and
WP:WAF are not fulfilled. This should be summarized in the main article, but I don't believe any of the current content is particularly worth being retained.
TTN (
talk)
16:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable writer. I can find lots of press releases, but no significant independent coverage of the person or any books by him, just some brief mentions in relation to doomsday scenarios.
Schazjmd(talk)15:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another law firm that fails
WP:NCORP. I checked the newspaper citations referred to in the article and they were not impressive: some of their lawyers have been interviewed about employment law matters over the years, as one would expect for an employment law firm. Other coverage is in
Rochester, New York–area press so fails
WP:AUD.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
15:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't seem to meet
WP:GNG, since most coverage of him is about his business instead. All of the rewards he's received are local awards that don't seem notable. Many of them are from the same local business journal, and the majority of other claims are
unsourced.
I'm a bit suspicious of this article as well, because it was written promotionally for years by multiple
SPAs (but I know that's not a reason for deletion - it just means it would have to majorly be cleaned up).
Whisperjanes (
talk)
14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is spam for an businessman that masquerades as a sports bio. The sources are a profile by an entrepreneur.com contributor and the subject's own website. Per entrepreneur.com: Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. In other words, the magazine exercised no editorial control over the content. It is neither independent nor reliable. With regards to his notability as a soccer player: a) Elkaim also played as an amateur for the Toronto Lynx. WP:NFOOTBALL says players are presumed notable if they play in fully professional leagues. Presumed notable means that it is likely that sources exist. I'm challenging that rebuttable presumption. There are no independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject (either as a soccer player) or a businessman.
Vexations (
talk)
14:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Das osmnezz, He is presumably notable per WP:NFOOTBALL IF you're right about playing in a fully pro league despite playing as an amateur. Since he played for the Toronto Lynx as an amateur in 2001, four years before the USL First Division was established, he does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL.But I think you omit to address a point I raise. What I really do is challenge the presumable part. The assumption of notability is not supported by extant sources. No sources exist that make him notable. That's a rebuttal, the presumption of notability now no longer stands.
Vexations (
talk)
19:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article about soccer player who made a total of 3 appearances in the A League during his entire career. There is a presumption of notability in
WP:NFOOTBALL but the article comprehensively fails
WP:GNG (all online coverage of his soccer career is trivial, e.g.,
[22]) and there is a longstanding consensus that the presumption is invalid in these cases. Perhaps the article can meet the GNG through coverage of his business accomplishments, but I only found the one Entrepreneur article which isn't enough in my view to satisfy the significant coverage requirement.
Jogurney (
talk)
19:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A non-notable self-published book book which fails
WP:NBOOK, The book temporarily received publicity as an insult to Palestinian people. The joke is that most of the pages in the book are blank. Wikipedia should not be a tool which is used to assist one side of the conflict by giving article space to this book which fails
WP:N. Additionally the article's creator was perma-blocked by the WMF,
Lightburst (
talk)
13:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: The article has sources with significant independent coverage, including
the Jerusalem Post,
Haaretz and
the Jewish Journal. I agree that the book is inflammatory and insulting to the Palestinian people, but the discussion of it reflects the complex history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The article has extensive coverage of both the "positive" and "negative" reaction to the book, and it is not a one-sided tool to assist either side of the conflict. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
14:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Is 42 sources no good enough?? Some of them are pretty good as Toughpigs has pointed out. I fail to see why this is at AfD.
Govvy (
talk)
15:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Govvy I will expound. As a book this self-published empty book does not pass any of the five points outlined in the
WP:BKCRIT guiedline. FYI: all 120 of the book's pages are blank. If we consider this book an event it is not
WP:LASTING, it made a splash in Israeli publications (toughpigs included a few) as joke and probably because Amazon pulled it from their site. The book made news for those reasons, yet we are
WP:NOTNEWS. Additionally two of the !voters in the first AfD were socks and another one is a WMF blocked editor.
Lightburst (
talk)
18:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I think that the relevant policy is
WP:GNG; there was significant discussion about the book in reliable news outlets. I agree that as a work of literature or history, this obviously fails, because, as you said, it's blank, self-published and essentially just a hurtful joke. But the quality of the work is not relevant for determining the notability of the subject, if it's had significant coverage. Also, your two comments about the creator and AfD participants being socks/banned are not relevant to the notability of this subject. The contributions of individual banned editors are not a "poison pill" that makes the article subject less notable. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
18:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes and No, but you seem to forget the concept of the art form here. Although I personally think it's kinda disgusting. It has provoked reactions and that is what the article shows, this is not just a book it is also a piece of art. The reaction to this art is evident enough to have multiple sources and this seems to pass GNG to me.
Govvy (
talk)
18:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes GNG based on coverage presented by Toughpigs. Wikipedia does not delete articles because their subject is offensive/insulting/etc.
★Trekker (
talk)
21:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
To be clear you advocate keeping a book with all blank pages based on RS? Yet the only RS involves the same story over and over... "Amazon got duped". Look over the references and the ones provided by Toughpigs above - they are about Amazon getting fooled - not about the book. The empty book was trolling, and a joke and in no way notable as art, an event or a book. The only sources to be found center around Amazon. The joke is long over but we are keeping an article based entirely on RS that repeats the same story over and over - and it is about Amazon not the book.
Lightburst (
talk)
22:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep this is a list of people so the relevant guideline to pass is
WP:NLIST. Lists which provide navigation or information are usually kept. This list provides information. The death of a police officer is dramatic yet the officer may not merit an individual article, so the list is an appropriate placement. The nomination calls out the lack of references, however items on the list can be referenced they are notable. Additionally the fact that another list of Sherifs was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted -
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
Lightburst (
talk)
14:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Seems like a
WP:NOT issue more than anything. This (like other similar lists) is effectively a reproduction of data available through the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Duplicating content from a memorial seems problematic since we have
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Wikipedia should have very few lists that aim to be exhaustive, and I would support having this if more of the individual cases were noteworthy. — Rhododendritestalk \\
15:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am deeply unsure how notable this is. It seems to all be about pre-release promotion, even though the film is supposed to have been released. No reviews or post-release press.
Slatersteven (
talk)
12:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Looks self-promotion of a campaign stunt. Two "news" outlets cited, Washington Times and the deceptively titled CBN news which seems to be Christian Broadcasting Network "at the forefront of the culture wars since the network’s inception in the early 1960s", so both appear to be unreliable sources. Third party sourcing needed. . .
dave souza,
talk14:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or Merge into
Paul Crouch Jr.. Non-notable conspiracy theory video. Note that it will most likely become more than just a YouTube video. Crouch is perfectly capable of ordering a run of DVDs and selling them online and in Christian bookstores, of buying time on religious cable channels, and of arranging screenings at fundamentalist churches. All standard marketing for videos of this nature, and not in any way an indication of notability. Basic principle: if you can buy it, it isn't evidence of notability. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
14:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete – I've not found many actualreliable sources covering the film, so it currently fails
WP:NFSOURCES. As it's not been released, it does not meet any of the five
WP:NFO criteria — even if it were released, I doubt it would meet the criteria still. Seems rather self-promotional as mentioned by Dave souza (it's almost as if there's an election around the corner!). —
MelbourneStar☆talk14:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep this is a list of people so the relevant guideline to pass is
WP:NLIST. Lists which provide navigation or information are usually kept. This list provides information. The death of a police officer is dramatic yet the officer may not merit an individual article, so the list is an appropriate placement. The nomination calls out the lack of references, however items on the list can be referenced they are notable. Additionally the fact that another list of Sherifs was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted - we may find a new
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
Lightburst (
talk)
14:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The article fails NLIST and
WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the subject fails
WP:LISTN and
WP:GNG. The subject, the death of LAPD officers on-duty, as opposed to the death of individual officers has to be covered in reliable sources. Any statements about what's "usually kept" are logically inconsistent with sentences about how another similar list was just deleted. Chris Troutman (
talk)20:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Seems like a
WP:NOT issue more than anything, owing to its intent to be an exhaustive list. A single list of notable police officers killed in the line of duty seems quite reasonable, but these lengthy attempts to include every single person who died this way is
WP:NOTMEMORIAL and a
WP:SALAT issue. — Rhododendritestalk \\
20:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep this is a list of people so the relevant guideline to pass is
WP:NLIST. Lists which provide navigation or information are usually kept. This list provides information. The death of a police officer is dramatic yet the officer may not merit an individual article, so the list is an appropriate placement. The nomination calls out the lack of references, however items on the list can be referenced they are notable. Additionally the fact that another list of Sherifs was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted - we may find a new
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
Lightburst (
talk)
14:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep this is a list of people so the relevant guideline to pass is
WP:NLIST. Lists which provide navigation or information are usually kept. This list provides information. The death of a police officer is dramatic yet the officer may not merit an individual article, so the list is an appropriate placement. The nomination calls out the lack of references, however items on the list can be referenced they are notable. Additionally the fact that another list of Sherifs was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted - we may find a new
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
Lightburst (
talk)
14:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep this is a list of people so the relevant guideline to pass is
WP:NLIST. Lists which provide navigation or information are usually kept. This list provides information. The death of a police officer is dramatic yet the officer may not merit an individual article, so the list is an appropriate placement. Additionally the fact that another list of Sherifs was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted - we may find a new
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
Lightburst (
talk)
14:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete We have a consolidated list for all LEOs killed, and they come from thousands of police and sheriff departments; it is not reasonable to split this out for every city.
Reywas92Talk22:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Actor has done a few films as mentioned in the article but they don't seem to be significant or notable enough work-wise. Has done a few TV shows but has played supporting roles. She lacks in-depth coverage. I think its a bit
WP:TOSOON for this page, In my opinion we need a discussion on this if this should stay or not. -
FitIndiaTalkAdmin on Commons10:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Recurring role in two saisons of India's first Netflix original show should be sufficient for notability. --
Ganescha (
talk) 13:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: User:Ganescha •
contribs has made less then 30 edits on this project and their only edit in the past six months have been on this
AfD. ---
FitIndiaTalkAdmin on Commons06:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
You are right. My main activity is in the German Wikipedia. I just have translated this article into German. As I have experienced the practices in the English Wikipedia are superficially the same but still slightly different. So allow me to add that there is a significant press coverage relevant newspapers (e.g.
Hindustan Times). The colourful vita of this actor - born in Teheran, raised in Hanover, now in the Indian film industry - may play a role. --
Ganescha (
talk)
16:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
My
WP:PROD was correctly declined; I had missed the fact that this article had been PRODded before, so here we are. My PROD rationale: Sourced only to (non-
WP:RS)
IMDb since creation in 2015. A
WP:BEFORE search turned up a copy of the one-line plot-summary in IMDb, and that was all. Fails
WP:NFILM and
WP:GNG.
Narky Blert (
talk)
20:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete looking at the GHITS, I can see a few references to it, but nothing from noted RS. There is a listing on IMDB, but there's no reviews of it, doesn't seem to be notable. Scant RS in the article.
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
05:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - did my best to expand it. There's quite a decent coverage of the film in books and scholarly press. It turns out to be one of the first sci-fi films made in India. I invite those who voted to delete it to have a look at it. I think it could even be taken to DYK.
Shahid • Talk2me15:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as per
WP:HEY as the article has been expanded with the use of reliable academic and book sources so that
WP:GNG is passed and there is no longer any reason for deletion. Also note that the delete votes were cast before the article was improved, imv
Atlantic306 (
talk)
23:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Indeed, the article was significantly expanded on 14 September 2020, which included the addition of fourteen references. Relisting to allow for consideration of those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America100010:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Biography of a businessman who does not meet the general notability guideline. The sources provided are primary, unreliable and mention the subject briefly and no in-depth significant coverage found in multiple RS.
Umakant Bhalerao (
talk)
10:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I believe the article does meet the general notability guideline - only businessmen of a certain reputation and stature would be invited to be the commencement speaker at the
New Jersey Institute of Technology. As for in-depth significant coverage, the "Those Who Made It" episode is a 20-minute feature on Hassan's life produced by a major Indian television channel Zee TV. The accompanying article on India News also delves specifically into Hassan and his life. Granted some of the sources do not have him as the primary subject, but those sources are intended only to provide evidence for specific details included in the article.
GlobalYouth20 (
talk)
11:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I struggled to find any sourcing that would indicate this program is notable. It consists all of
namedrops and passing mentions. There are a lot of programs under similar names. For instance,
this seems to be a different program than is cited in the article, as does
this and
this, but none of them seem to meet
WP:GNG. THe
trove id contains links to promising sources, but all are offline and seem to have been published before 2006 (when this program was allegedly created). This page was redirected to
Western Sydney University by
AleatoryPonderings, but I am taking to AFD because I found no indication that the program even merits a mention at that university's page (it currently isn't mentioned there at all).
Eddie891TalkWork14:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Different institutions. ANU is in Canberra, Nugget Coombs directed that first program. UWS (now Western Sydney University) is in Parramatta, in a different state, and it is not the same program. --
Whiteguru (
talk)
11:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Might be a promising source, but it's by a professor in the Urban Research Program, so I don't think we can consider it establishing notability, unfortunately. And, yes, I think almost definitely they are different organizations. Best,
Eddie891TalkWork12:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
'Comment' i feel its a good article but when it comes to the content it is short. it should be added so that people don't have to jump between pages to get more information
Author Sanju (
talk)
14:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unsourced article about a minor character in a TV show. No significant coverage in independent sources found. Sorry, this is not Wikia (
t ·
c) buidhe09:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Asides him being fired for “harassment” I am unable to locate any in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources discussing subject. A before search mostly discusses his “harassment” issues so per
WP:BLP1EVENT this doesn’t count for much. Furthermore being a CEO / former CEO doesn’t confer automatic notability. Lastly, sources used in this article are either spam, unreliable, Pr sponsored or aren’t even about subject. In all this is a
WP:GNG &
WP:ANYBIO fail. Celestina00708:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Celestina007, greetings. I've seen pages similar on the subject, and I assume that Chacko fits the subject. Yes, it's not the loudest scandal about Metoomovement or any anti-harassment theme, but it's not worse or better than others. It just exists. Vote for/on the contrary, I don't care, I'm just learning how to contribute to the Wikipedians community. My regards. --
Maastricht Treaty (work of student M.Gibson) (
talk)
08:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete This article violates one event notability guidelines. If there person was not notable before they were fired for harassment allegations, getting fired for harassment allegations does not make them notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Draftify: Rather than delete, I request it is moved into the project draft-space as I think it will be possible to improve in the near future.
Blaene (
talk)
08:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Draftify article fails GNG and NORG. But since the author requested to work on it in draftspace, its worth giving them the opportunity. //
Timothy :: talk01:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or draftify -- I find it very hard to believe that a society with under 50 members is WP-notable. It might appear in a list of historical re-enactment groups with a link to its own website, but I doubt it would ever be able to get over the notability barrier.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A previous instance was deleted at AfD in September 2018 but now re-created as an editor's first article.
JamesG5 placed a PROD notice with the rationale "Having trouble seeing the actual
WP:GNG here since basically all the links are press releases from the people fronting it. Also previously deleted. Looks like straight up
WP:PROMO." I removed the PROD notice because of the previous AfD but don't disagree with the rationale. The discussion in the previous AfD looks as applicable to this instance, which is again mixing funding announcements and how-to claims, which might suggest
WP:G4 could apply. However this instance does reference one study published since the previous AfD, hence this new AfD.
AllyD (
talk)
06:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Per nom & my PROD. Honestly I meant to bring it to AfD myself but hit the wrong button. I looked at it when it popped up & between bad refs, obvious promo, and the previous AfD it doesn't seem to belong.
JamesG5 (
talk)
12:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak delete. A fair number of her books were reviewed in Publishers Weekly (e.g.,
[23]) and there is a bit more coverage on ProQuest (she was part of a national book tour of a group of romance authors), but I'm not seeing multiple reviews of any given book and Publishers Weekly reviews pretty much everything so I'm reluctant to rely heavily on it. Looks like a failure of
WP:NAUTHOR to me. Open to change my !vote if someone finds additional reviews.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
12:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. An editor (
Thinkonthesethings153) claiming to be the subject has requested that this page be deleted in edit comments on the page:
This page about me was made without my knowledge or consent. I would like to have it completely removed but do not know how to do so. Therefore, I edited out the incorrect/out of date information.
The rights to these books have reverted to me--the author--they are no longer in print and will not be republished. I do not wish for them to be advertised/named in any way to protect my privacy and religious beliefs.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails to meet basic GNG as well relevant WP:NACTOR. cited sources are not reliable enough. I don't see she has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Saqib (
talk)
06:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
There are videos in the youtube of the dramas she worked in lead, she is currently doing a lead role in drama umeed. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BeauSuzanne (
talk •
contribs)
She is known for lead roles in dramas on PTV channel, I meant that should i add the video of the drama in which she worked. She has worked with Sami Khan, Ahsan Khan twice and faysal Qureshi and many more. She was known for her lead roles in Yaad Piya Ki Aye and Kaghaz Kay Pool and many more. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BeauSuzanne (
talk •
contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge any unique and adequately sourced entries to the
List of unsolved deaths. The list appears to be an unnecessary
WP:CONTENTFORK. I am ambivalent on whether the list title is a likely search term as opposed to the simpler title of the target. So it might be better to delete the page as opposed to turn into a redirect once the merge is completed. Lastly I note that some of the entries are dubiously sourced and claims that the deaths are actually unsolved may be a stretch. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
05:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge to the
List of unsolved deaths. It might get easier to manage such a list after it has been merged adequately. 12:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Buen has been 100% cleared in the creation of the
ILOVEYOU worm now that the real creator of that worm has confessed and stated that he made it alone. As a result, we now have an entire article that accuses Buen of something that he didn't do. Buen did create a different virus, called Mykl-B, but this virus doesn't appear to be notable. This results in a situation where Buen is only known for something he didn't actually do - as a result, I feel this article should be deleted. Also, as far as I know, Buen is a living person, making these wrong allegations a huge BLP violation.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unsourced article about a single concert that doesn't demonstrate any notability. All sources on a quick Google search link back to this page or resourced copies of this page. The article almost reads as a press release, and is decidedly not encyclopedic, so even if it is worth keeping, it needs an extensive rewrite.
fuzzy510 (
talk)
04:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Personal injury law firm that fails
WP:NCORP. The awards are not convincing: many, many firms and lawyers are rated in some capacity by Avvo, and being reviewed by the BBB is hardly an award. Parroting Scope_creep here, I'd also call this native advertising.
AleatoryPonderings (
talk)
04:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Article reads like promotional literature. Cases contested in court are primary references. Not admissible. Other references are not found, or primary. --
Whiteguru (
talk)
11:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Looks like a neighborhood in Inverness, CA. GNIS cites a commercial county map as its reference. Durham doesn't list it. The only references I can find are listings for vacation rentals. Nothing indicates that it is notable.
Glendoremus (
talk)
03:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I prodded this a while back with the usual "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." I notice that it has been deprodded by
User:WT79 who added a merge template, but did not complete this by starting a merge discussion. Anyway, all other articles on the fictional railways related to this seem to have been just redirected, not merged, primarily because just like this article here they had next to ne references and were a pure PLOT summary. As such, as suggest that this too is just deleted or redirected, with no merge needed, as there nothing to merge here, it is 100%
WP:FANCRUFT, sadly enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here05:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: merge is not appropriate for this page. All of the sub-branches of this railway are captured on this page, not their own pages. This page is the relevant page for all the branch railways off this line. --
Whiteguru (
talk)
11:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep, an important and unduplicatable page in Wikipedia's Railroad Series collection. Deletion removes a major piece of the overall topic and, if done well, then merging would overburden the target page and this is one which would have to be merged well. Best to let it exist as a stand-alone.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
20:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Notability is not inherited. It does not matter how important it's perceived in terms of the plot. When fiction lacks real world information from reliable sources, that fiction is condensed to fit the proper weight in the parent article. There appears to be nothing at all worth merging, so delete and a new redirect seems best.
TTN (
talk)
14:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
This has nothing to do with inherited notability, it is a part of the entire Railway Series structure that is itself notable. As for "Nothing at all worth merging", the entire page seems valuable per content.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
15:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
If you're saying it's a justifiable page split in its current state, you're saying it has inherited notability. If you think, despite its current poor state, that there are sources discussing it from a real world perspective, then you'd be asserting that it has potential for improvement. The page in its current state is all plot summary. That is never necessary, and it's pointless to merge such content without sources showing it's worth retaining. It can always be condensed to the most important parts if it lacks the backing of a real world perspective.
TTN (
talk)
16:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Since the article has been here since February, 2006, and has an average of 41 views a day per the last 90 day average, any major mistakes or misrepresentations would have been caught and edited out by now. It needs a few cites, but I'd think the Railroad has received many mentions in works about The Railway Series and the TV series, and those should be added and will likely show the page accuracy. But the topic is notable, the Railway represents the physical spine of the book and TV series, the tracks which the engines travel along. It is an essential part of the Railway Series universe, and thus a stand-alone subject in no need of inherited notability.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
23:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
None of that is an argument as to how this can be made to pass
WP:GNG. Your argument could be made about literally any piece of fiction, and it's literally saying this inherits notability. It also fails to meet the standards of
WP:WAF.
TTN (
talk)
23:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
At a minimum, given the importance of the topic to the overall subject, this falls under a common sense exception called for at the top of every guideline page. A few edits and context wording could be added, good idea, but lack of that at the moment shouldn't sink a 14-year-old topic-popular page. As for further cites, the railway is likely mentioned under one of its several alternate names in articles covering the book or television series. The alternate "Fat Conductor's Railway" seems a good topic title for a cite search.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
23:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Again, you can make that argument about any piece of fiction. There are still hundreds of 2005-era relic fiction articles as well. That nobody has ever cleaned this article space is a sign of stagnation, not stability. You're using an entirely subjective measure of importance on what is a minor topic. This is but one of tens of thousands of notable fictional series. Applying that standard, we'd have hundreds of thousands of such articles.
TTN (
talk)
23:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete though the fiction itself (and the article about it) is notable, this concept is not. There are no third party sources to improve this article to a state that would meet the
WP:GNG, which requires significant non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources. A merge would in fact be an okay compromise, after a hefty clean-up to bring the unsourced/primary information into proportion, and even there, the hope would be to eventually improve the sourcing so that it adds to another article, instead of detracting with unsourced and unreliable information.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
15:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Not all the listed references are terrific; on account of the extended filmography, he is clearly a minor actor with some notablity. Give this actor some time, he will get more roles a/c filmography. Keep and add the Tamil actors stub tag. --
Whiteguru (
talk)
11:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Article fails GNG, BASIC and NACTOR. Sources are mentions, nothing that covers the subject directly and indepth. I did find quite a few mentions in BEFORE, but they were thin, nothing that would add up to meeting BASIC. //
Timothy :: talk19:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I found only one source using his full name but about fifty English-language sources under just Wilbert Tolentino including a few full-length magazine articles, more than enough to write a good article on the subject.
Gleeanon409 (
talk)
04:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy delete G7 tagged The only other edits outside yours were bots, so I say this can easily be uncontested as author-requested deletion (though if you want to keep a draft in your userspace to move over for when it does get released, definitely feel free do to that). Also don't beat yourself up, you (and everyone else) didn't know in 2018 what would end up happening in 2020 🙍🏻. Nate•(
chatter)00:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I was going to userfy this, but since there were others who edited the article I wanted to make sure that there were no objections first since this wasn't tagged.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。)03:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.