Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 18 October 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goecken, California

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

Durham calls it a railroad station named for a local rancher on the Southern Pacific Railroad. Not listed in GNIS. Nothing to indicate a community and a very few mentions regarding a station of that name. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search of 1:24,000 scale USGS historical maps found a lack of any indication of there having ever been a populated place or community at the location specified for Goecken, California. The name Goecken was not even found on these maps. The only map reference to this name that was found is a lone, dead end, country road on current Google maps called Goecken Road. Found a lack of any obvious evidence of notabillity, WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG, and for existence of populated place associated with Goecken, California in either Google Books, JSTOR, the Proquest History Vault, EBSCO History Reference Center, and Google Search. Paul H. (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No post office. Confirmed to not be in GNIS. Alameda County Place Names states that it was a railroad station on the Southern Pacific, so WP:STATION applies. Searching Newspapers.com for "Goecken in California" and "Goecken Southern Pacific in California" yielded nothing. However, searching Newspapers.com for "Goecken Western Pacific in California" yields at least one hit indicating that Goecken was a station ([1]). It looks like "Alameda County Place Names" was wrong about which railroad Goecken was on. Goecken is not a legally recognized locale, so #1 WP:GEOLAND does not apply. There is only trivial coverage of this railroad station, so it does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for Real Education

[edit]
Campaign for Real Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

92 Google hits. Sources are primary, trivial, or about other things (e.g. an obituary). There have been problems maintaining NPOV, which seem to me to be down to the lack of substantive coverage in RS. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| [gossip] || 16:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic language

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

A disambiguation page that lists a bunch of languages, like Arabic. Turkish and Pashto. What is an "Islamic language"? It's not a synonym for any of the languages listed there, it's a vague descriptive phrase that can mean everything and nothing. This has also been discussed on the talk page. – Uanfala (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It really wouldn't matter at this point anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who said I was working hard? I was just pointing out @Inqilābī:'s heavy bias in the article. He kept making up rules as he went along as to what constitutes as an Islamic language and showed POV by including dialects as separate or same language. But a point I would like to make is why is there a Jewish languages article? UserNumber (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish languages are the language spoken by the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group. Languages spoken by Jews are often referred to as "Jewish languages" in common parlance and scholarly literature. "Islamic language(s)" is quite arbitrary and made-up (any sources until now?), just as "Christian language(s)", "Buddhist language(s)" etc. would be. Compare also the lead of Jews with those of Muslims and Christians in order to see where the difference lies. You will certainly find the expressions "Islamic language" or "Christian language" in reliable sources, but in the sense of "style/diction/jargon characteristic of Islamic/Christian discourse". –Austronesier (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to support what Austronesier said, Russian is like 8th or 9th (I can't remember, but it's far up there) language spoken by Muslims. It would be really weird to include it in any kind of list like this though. Pure and simple, it's just not an "Islamic" language. BTW, I'd say the same goes for Mandarin Chinese. Which is in the list. Only like 0.45% of people in China are Muslims, and a much larger percentage of Chinese people speak the language. So, it's simply wrong and linguistic co-opting to say Mandarin Chinese is in any way "Islamic." When the bar is that low literally any language could be consider "Islamic." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: and @Adamant1:, good points I guess. UserNumber (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but any single voters don't "delete" articles. We just give opinions and the closer decides the best thing to do based on the evidence. It's not on any one user if an article gets deleted though. Since this is a consensus based system. People who think it should be keep are perfectly capable of making a reasoned, guideline based argument as to why. Personally, I'm of the opinion that maybe in a broad way there might be a few languages that academically could be considered "Islamic." I just don't think this is the way to construe it in an acceptable way for Wikipedia or that there is one. It would be fine for a personal blog or something though. Maybe even one of the alternative Wikipedia sites. It's to vague of a thing for Wikipedia though. This isn't the place for essays or original research. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: This article is not any essay or original research. I have included one reference thus far, and since this is a newly-created article, there is room for further improving it if given enough time! The article as it was originally written by its creator was a rubbish, but I have begun bettering it. Most importantly, however, this consensus should be nullified inasmuch as the users supported deleting the article based on the old revision in which the article was a disambiguation page and listed very few languages and lacked any citations. I think discussions should begin afresh reflecting its current status. Just be forbearing and give me a good while.
Furthermore, this article should be kept for two important reasons: 1) “Islamic languages” is a term actually used by scholars, as I said before; 2) This article is intended to have the same scope as that of Jewish languages. — Inqilābī (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is original research, as long as the topic is based merely on an analogy to Jewish languages. Even Wexler uses the term "Islamic languages" only as an ad hoc shorthand (intended to mean "non-Arabic languages spoken by Muslims", cf. p.346 of your source) for the purpose of his discussion of Arabic as a tool for expressing Jewish identity. –Austronesier (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)
@Austronesier: If you think that "Islamic languages" is based merely on an analogy to Jewish languages, then you are mistaken. Just do Google search on the subject, and you will get many publications using the term. So I earnestly request you people to spare me some time so that I can add more relevant references (which contain no analogy to Jewish languages). Thanks. — Inqilābī (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong way to start an article. You cannot start with the vague idea of a new topic to salvage a page title of a botched obvious attempt to invent a topic, and only then begin to collect sources which potentially support the existence of the newly defined topic. A topic should be verifiable thing from the start. –Austronesier (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: Does not really matter. Why not consider the article as is presented and intended now? And as I said, there is room for improving the article, even if the article originally began as a botched attempt. Please reconsider...! — Inqilābī (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There is always the option of drafting it in your user space once it's deleted and then doing an AfC to get it put back in main space once it is acceptable. Although, I doubt it ever will be. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it though. There might very be another form of this that is drastically different, but along the same lines that will be acceptable. Drafting it as at least better then trying to appeal to us to change our votes. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re the uses of the phrase that come up in search results, it's worth having a look at Mathglot's comment at Talk:Islamic languages#What is an Islamic language?. – Uanfala (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major Major (album)

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

Non-notable album. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources. The band is also non-notable, listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermassive (band). Hog Farm Bacon 21:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 21:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supermassive (band)

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

Looks non-notable. Seems to fail WP:NBAND, I wasn't able to find anything outside of user-generated sources, blogs, and a few primary sources. Not seeing any notability here. Hog Farm Bacon 21:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 21:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 21:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Looks like we're in for a spot of inclement weather..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of royal guests at the coronation of Elizabeth II

[edit]
List of royal guests at the coronation of Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicate of List of participants in the coronation procession of Elizabeth II (which has the same source as this article) created by sock puppet and LTA IPs. DrKay (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's plainly not a duplicate. For example, the page in question has a section listing Members_of_foreign_royal_families who do not appear in the procession. As the coronation was extensively covered at the time and many books have been written about it since, the notability of the topic does not seem in question. As the procession was just a part of the coronation ceremony, the nomination does not seem to make much sense. It seems to be mainly a matter of WP:ADHOM, which is not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. The one source given only lists people who were expicitly in the procession. So, if they are not listed in the source, they should not be in the article at all, and if they are listed in the source then they were in the procession[5]. What you've said is blatantly and obviously false. DrKay (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Doherty (writer)

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

Does not show the subject is notable, only link is to IMDb. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next.js

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

Does not meet WP:GNG.

Source review:

  • [6], appears to be a crowdsourced site, not reliable
  • [7] largely just an interview with one of the subject's creators, not independent
  • [8] company website
  • [9] unclear whether this should be considered independent or not, as the author is a Google employee, although they claim to have no direct connection to this project.
  • [10], [11], [12], [13] Routine coverage of software updates that look like thinly veiled press releases
  • [14] How-to that mentions Next.js but isn't significant coverage

Searching online I was able to find similar routine coverage, but no significant independent analysis. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Next.js is a fast-growing framework with a medium-to-high number of users,[15] being used (and financed!) by major high-traffic sites. That volume and visibility has to leave some trace in the newsphere; this is not your run-of-the-mill obscure library with little support from unknow authors. Vercel and Next.js have been noticed by Forbes,[16] german tech site t3n, [17][18] and other independent sources with some technical or contextual analysis. [19] [20]
Also I find trouble in nominator's argument that an interview with the author is not independent coverage. That would be the case if the interview was published by a media source controlled by the same or a connected company, but I don't see how that's the case with StackOverflow. An interview published by a third party is subject to independent editorial control, and provides evidence that the topic has been found interesting enough by an independent publisher to the point of giving it significant coverage in their website. Diego (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
edit vote to speedy keep - subject of multiple independent published and printed instruction books as per 3rd notability option on WP:NSOFT. See Google Books results above; here are a couple, which suffice, on their own, to establish notability.[1][2][3] Footlessmouse (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Footlessmouse (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Konshin, Kirill (2018-07-26). Next.js Quick Start Guide: Server-side rendering done right. Packt Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1-78899-584-9.
  2. ^ Boduch, Adam (2020-07-28). Next.js in Action. Manning Publications. ISBN 978-1-61729-774-8.
  3. ^ Mohan, Mehul (2020-02-26). Advanced Web Development with React: SSR and PWA with Next.js using React with advanced concepts. BPB Publications. ISBN 978-93-89423-59-4.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as Keep but relisted after objections from multiple users on my talk page about the quality of sources provided by the voters. Hoping to see more analysis of sources with respect to notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| [confess] || 20:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The online sources provided thus far are equally poor quality to the ones I analyzed at the outset. The written books' authors don't appear to be widely cited, and the publishing houses aren't exactly O'Reilly Media. Leafing through the two books whose previews I was able to open, they seem to be full of poorly-written, unrestrained praise such as Next.js is a rising star of modern JavaScript. It is a powerful tool that can save a lot of time by doing all the under-the-hood processing required to bring a universal applications [sic] to life (page 1 of Next.js Quick Start Guide) or from [Next.js]'s official site, here are some points explaining why it's a good choice (second page of Chapter 6 of Advanced Web Development with React). I don't see any indication that these books contain any analysis of the subject beyond how-to information and lists of benefits that may as well be PR copy. signed, Rosguill talk 20:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I still strongly oppose this delete. I furthermore believe no one even moderately familiar with the topic (or web editing in general) will be likely to agree it should be deleted. It is not only notable in that area, it is absolutely and unobjectionably vital to it. So here is the grand policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if the common rules for GNC get in the way of improving or maintaining the encyclopedia, policy dictates they must be ignored. Those familiar with the topic realize it is hard to find ill-defined reliable sources for certain topics in freeware, but enough information exists to leave it as at least a stub for now. Also, the previews you have access to do not allow you to determine whether the books are reliable, even if multiple mistake were found. The quality of the intro is irrelevant to the book and is obviously there to help make sales. Anyways, I highly doubt you will get the votes to remove the article and I firmly believe that it is anti-productive to keep it cycling through AfD. Thanks. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is clearly lacking. There is a few books about it, but I don't think they are enough on their own and weirdly one of them was canceled by publisher before it came out. So, there doesn't seem to be anything to establish notability. PS, for API's, especially ones related to JavaScript, there are usually books etc. etc. about them. Their "freewareness" really has nothing to do with it, and I say that as someone who does JavaScript development and has also never heard of this either BTW. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone wants to use only my book references rather than searching on there own, let me add a few more, I was only going by WP:NSOFT at that time (also is Springer Publishing a good enough publisher?)[1][2] Here's one in Japanese.[3]. I found eight other books by Packt Publishing, but am not including them here. There are plenty of books. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Thakkar, Mohit (2020), Thakkar, Mohit (ed.), "Next.js", Building React Apps with Server-Side Rendering: Use React, Redux, and Next to Build Full Server-Side Rendering Applications, Berkeley, CA: Apress, pp. 93–137, doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-5869-9_3, ISBN 978-1-4842-5869-9, retrieved 2020-10-19
  2. ^ Thakkar, Mohit (2020-04-02). Building React Apps with Server-Side Rendering: Use React, Redux, and Next to Build Full Server-Side Rendering Applications. Apress. ISBN 978-1-4842-5869-9.
  3. ^ 掌田津耶乃 (2019). React.js&Next.js超入門 (in Japanese). 秀和システム. ISBN 978-4-7980-5692-0.

Note I have rewritten the page cutting out most of the cruddy sources and replacing them mostly with the Springer source and the Smashing Magazine articles. I believe those are reliable enough. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Adamant1 and Rosguill: are either of you willing to re-evaluate in light of the entirely new article? It is totally new and is properly cited. At this point, I believe it does meet WP:GNG, with significant coverage in at least two highly reliable sources that are independent of the topic. It is therefore, presumed to be notable. If you still disagree, what else do you think it needs? From what I see, I have addressed all major complaints and see no valid reason it should be deleted. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't tell for sure because of the paywall, but from looking at the chapter summaries for the sources published by Springer, they look like they limit themselves to being a how-to guide. Same goes for the Smashing Magazine articles. I don't know that it's possible to cobble together an article on the basis of how-to's without resorting to original research.
    Looking through pages for other React extensions, I'm left with the impression that it would probably be more encyclopedic to try to cover them together in an article, but also recognize that at this point there's already quite a few of them and thus there isn't a clear target for merging content from Next.js, nor would it be trivial to try to merge the existing articles. I'm thus honestly not terribly insistent on deleting this article, although I think that it does fall shy of notability guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 05:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill:Thanks for letting me know there's a paywall, for whatever reason, I do not have one, maybe I'm logged in, I'm not on my VPN. There is plenty of information in the springer chapters (there's two) I posted just a few things and I think it's a little past stub status now, have you reviewed the new article? I rewrote it? There is no original research there, the Springer textbook chapter on Next provide a good introduction with information on not only what it is but what React is and why Next is used and it is done so in a textbook form which is easy to paraphrase into encyclopedic form. I will continue working on it. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Question which part of "In this chapter, we will learn about a framework called 'Next.js' that is used to build applications that are rendered on the server-side" (Thakkar 2020 "Next.js") sounds like it is restricted to a how to only? I'm super confused about your entire response. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with Rosguill about the books not being much for an article, there was an AfD a while back for a very similar thing that resulted in keep because supposedly software that has multiple books specifically written about it is notable. At least that's what the keep voters said and the closer seemed to agree. I'm not sure what AfD it was or where the guideline about it is or if there even is one. Maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about. That said, if there is such a guideline or consensus about it somewhere, I wouldn't know where the line is or if chapters devoted to it in multiple books would count. It is something to look into though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Are you just saying that without reviewed the article, or are you claiming the article I have rewritten is worthy of deletion? WP:NSOFT is obviously what was discussed. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note This AfD has devolved into opinions editors have on what they think the contents of the sources contain and how much they can be used to say without them having looked through them. Let us discuss the article and it's criteria. It is no longer a stub, there is no original research, it establishes WP:GNG, what am I missing? Footlessmouse (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in article, which I reviewed and you had no of knowing if I did or not, aren't good enough to establish notability IMO. Which is why I was brought up a prior example where an article about a piece of software was kept because it had books written about it. For some reason though you think what happened in a past AfD is "devolving into opinion" and not a good thing to keep the article based on. Which, frankly is sort of bizarre, but whatever. So, I struck the comment out. Given that, I stick by delete vote. Since the sourcing isn't enough and there isn't another basis to keep the article on. Although, there might have been, but oh well. I don't feel like doing the useless, un-constructive back and forth or people trying to control the direction of the discussion in the way your doing, the inevitable (or already existing) bludging on your part etc etc anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Since I struck out my vote above earlier. It passes every single aspect of WP:GNG and does not fall into any what Wikipedia is not traps, I can find no valid reason to delete. Also WP:NSOFT might be just an essay but is a good guideline in lack of a specialty guideline and has apparently been used before. Finally, for everyone who would want to see it merged but can't find a redirect, how about React (web framework)? I will say nothing more (even though WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy). Footlessmouse (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet GNG with TechRepublic article and Springer Book, as well as the Stackoverflow blog. If stackoverflow blog is considered WP:RS/WP:IS, then I wouldn't reject it for the purpose of notability just because it is largely an interview of the subject or subject's author. Being interviewed in WP:RS makes the subject notable. Interviews are considered primary source with respect to factual information, not notability. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 14:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly wrong. The GNG explicitly says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The persons own words aren't "significant coverage that's independent of the subject." Plus, the information has to be secondary. I.E. a synthesis of primary material. A person talking about themselves is not secondary information. It's not reliable either, because first person accounts of things just aren't, and it has to be.--Adamant1 (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: I had removed this before, but upon further reflection, I added it back into the page. You might read up on the guidelines, as it can be used as a reliable source for some statements and not others, for instance, I used it as a reference for who the current CEO of Vercel is, which is in no way invalid. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Footlessmouse: Just an FYI, there's a difference between sources that can be used to support basic facts and ones that help establish a topics notability. For instance, Twitter is perfectly fine as a citation for a basic fact (although recently it needs another reliable source added with it). It doesn't work to use Twitter as part of an AfD discussion about notability though. Which is the important thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: my bad, I'm not sure why you even responded to the comment, then. Notability is established aplenty without reference to the interview. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong| [prattle] || 16:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2003–04 Shrewsbury Town F.C. season

[edit]
2003–04 Shrewsbury Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club was playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NSEASONS states that "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements" (my emphasis). It doesn't state that a season outside of a top professional league MUST NOT be created. This article is well written with plenty of prose, and would surely meet WP:GNG, and could possibly be a GA contender. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - meets the NSEASONS criteria in the sense that it satisfies "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose", however, a lot of the sourcing is just routine match reports from the BBC Spiderone 15:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what is significant here, where is the coverage? Yes the prose is well-written, but it's 90% match reports. GiantSnowman 16:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is significant? Maybe the fact they got promoted back into the Football lLeague! :/ And the fact that everything is sourced discards NSeasons really and that's a sub of GNG which technically this article does pass. Govvy (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 09:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's significant independent national-level coverage User:HawkAussie of their promotion; The Independent, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Times, BBC. Nfitz (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG with continuous national coverage. The only argument for deletion is that it "fails WP:NSEASONS," but NSEASONS is not an exclusionary policy, meaning an article can still exist if it passes WP:GNG. Also, the fact a team's match reports get written up every week by secondary sources is a clear sign that season was notable, even though we typically discount match reports as insignificant. I actually think demonstrating secondary written match reports is a requirement for these types of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 09:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ‑Scottywong| [talk] || 16:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Tseytlin

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

A before search yields only [21], which is a reliable source and focused on him but, unfortunately, not enough to justify a stand-alone article. Google News returns nothing about him. He does not appear to pass WP:GNG and does not appear to have reached the same heights of notability as compatriot Ravshan Irmatov. Spiderone 17:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of those is just the Uzbek-language version of the retirement announcement that I have already referenced above. FC Shurtan Guzar is just a routine announcement that he is refereeing an upcoming fixture for FC Shurtan Guzar on the official club website for that club; not significant coverage or an independent news source. Yandex is focused on him but extremely brief. Sports Uz Interview is focused on him but it's an interview. It shows some good coverage on him as an individual in that last source, though. Ultimately, I'm not convinced that there is enough coverage. Referees tend to get a lack of coverage compared to footballers playing at the same level but it's not our place to right that wrong. Spiderone 08:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" just the Uzbek-language version of the retirement announcement that I have already referenced above" User:Spiderone? Same publisher, but the English one is 3 weeks earlier and is only 2 sentences long, and the Uzbek one is far more detailed, and also includes an extensive interview. Nfitz (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be some coverage, only one so far which might go some way to satisfying GNG. Would delete if nothing more comes to light, but given sources are likely to be non English no harm in extending to allow more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two sports.uz articles constitute WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/WP:IS. Interviews being primary sources is an issue for citing factual information, not notability. Being interviewed by an WP:RS/WP:IS makes the subject notable and constitutes significant coverage, on par with a profile run by the same source. — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 14:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WHP Global

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

Edit #1 contained a maintenance template from July 2019. Article appears to be spammy in nature and subject non-notable. Most provided sources are press releases. ♟♙ (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco DeMaria

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

There is no indication that DeMaria meets the notability guidelines for academics. The one source, Who's Who, is generally not considered a reliable source. Nothing in the article suggests actually meeting notability guidelines. One last thing, the creator of the article used the user name Mdemaria, which may indicate some sort of personal relationship with the subject. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Wimpshake

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

Just another WP:MILL band. No significant coverage. Restoring the previous redirect to Red Monkey (band) makes no sense as the band is not related in any way except for a single member without their own article. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (regretfully) - The band has a pretty robust AllMusic profile ([22]), but despite a long career I can find almost nothing else except routine gig announcements, promo statements from record companies, and softball introductory interviews. Here is fairly useful feature article ([23]) from a lesser-known publication. Unfortunately they seem to have remained under the radar for their many years, which is cool for a DIY punk band but not for Wikipedia, where we need reliable and significant coverage. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 19:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vote Change - For my vote above I am pretty sure that I found most of the sources located by the voters below, but considered them to be too brief and piecemeal to qualify as significant coverage. However, in light of their quantity I can concede that I may have been too tough on the "significant" standard. Admins can consider my vote to be Weak Keep. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 02:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are NME and Uncut reviews for one of their later albums. Punknews.org, Line of Best Fit, Drowned in Sound, Manchester Evening News, The Herald, MRR, and Pitchfork ones for others. A musicOMH review of a live show. Google shows at least brief mentions in books about DIY and riot grrrl... Caro7200 (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified in this discussion such as AllMusic, NME, The Herald, Pitchfork, Drowned in Sound and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Good sources found by Piotrus (non-admin closure)   // Timothy :: talk  09:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerlach (company)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Sources in the article do not meet WP:RS, WP:IS and do not contain WP:SIGCOV addressing the topic directly and in depth. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV.   // Timothy :: talk  18:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added pl interwiki, but the Polish article is about as bad. I agree tha the current article deserves notability tag, but the company is notable (note: I am the author of WP:CORPSPAM so far from corp-inclusionist). It is a household name in Poland (IMHO). Some sources: 1) has a section in this list-article by Polish edition of Business Insider about the oldest Polish brands: [24] 2) very similar article in Polish edition of Forbes: [25] 3) snippet view only so I am not sure if the coverage is in depth, but there are at least several sentences of coverage in Polish magazine Przekrój from 2006: [26], 4) dedicated article about the company in Polish Forbes - I think, not free so I can see only the beginning: [27] 5) A dedicated article in Puls Biznesu, another reliable if minor Polish newspaper: [28] 6) WP:INTERVIEW with the company's president in Polish financial portal pl:Bankier.pl, reliable portal, but interview is less so: [29] 7) an article in a Polish home making magazine pl:Cztery Kąty: [30]. I am sure there is more. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bater

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable primarily as leader of a minor political party without legislative representation during his leadership and mayor of a small city in the 10-20K population range. Neither of these are "inherent" notability freebies that guarantee an article, but the sourcing is not solid enough to get him over the WP:GNG or WP:NPOL #2 bars that he actually has to clear: of the seven footnotes here, one is the party's own self-published content about itself and two are routine reportage of election results. So there are really only four sources relevant to establishing his notability, of which one is just verifying his initial announcement of his leadership candidacy, one is verifying the date of his resignation, and one is verifying his initial election as mayor. That's not enough, however: to be notable for either of these reasons, he has to show substantial coverage that establishes the significance of his party leadership and his mayoralty, not just the raw dates on which he assumed or resigned the positions. That is, coverage which talks about specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific impacts he had in the job, and on and so forth.
This has also been flagged for possible conflict of interest concerns for nearly a decade, incidentally. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topeka Collegiate School

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

Article does not meet GNG or NCORP / ORGCRIT. BEFORE showed no RS SIGCOV. Coverage includes mentions, routine and run of the mill news stories, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth   // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Buzzword. The comments at this discussion are split between keeping the article as-is, and merging/redirecting the article to Buzzword. Numerically, there is a small but significant majority of voters in favor of merging/deleting (about 62% for merge/redirect, and 38% for keep). Of course, AfD is not about simply counting votes, but assessing the strength of arguments on each side. Ultimately, the most convincing argument in the discussion is that this list is an arbitrary collection of words and phrases with very little (if any) inclusion criteria. While some of the words have reliable sources to back them up, and those sources verify the existence of that word or concept, very few of those sources confirm that they are indeed considered "buzzwords", or verify their notability as buzzwords. Therefore, the consensus here is to merge any relevant content to Buzzword, perhaps retaining a very limited set of example buzzwords that can be shown clearly and uncontroversially (via reliable sources) that they are (or have been) considered "buzzwords" by society. When this merge is completed, the list article should be redirected to Buzzword. ‑Scottywong| [verbalize] || 16:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of buzzwords

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

This page was first nominated for deletion in 2008; there was no consensus back then. I feel like enough time has passed to nominate it again. The main problem with this page, in my opinion, is just how arbitrary and subjective it is. There are no objective criteria for what a buzzword is; the article is just filled with all kinds of terminology and jargon, some of which in some contexts could be buzzwords, sure, but most of which are also just words with well defined meanings. Maybe that wouldn't be a problem if the article gave for every entry a context in which it is a buzzword; but it doesn't, and I don't think it realistically could. Then, there is the lack of sources; many entries are entirely unsourced, and when sources are present, some just describe terms without calling them buzzwords at all, and out of the ones that do, most are generic internet articles with titles like '13 Buzzwords To Stop Using'. And finally, as this article has not seen significant improvement since 2008, I find it hard to believe that it ever will. Lennart97 (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Buzzword - Most of this is either unsourced/trivial stuff, whilst the rest has some reasonable and reliable coverage to it. The latter could be covered in the main Buzzword article. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the more notable, well-cited examples into Buzzword, likely under "In popular culture". I agree that the article at current is subjective and messy, and trimming back the unsourced and contentious examples while searching for more reliable sources to help back up others (and resolve the singular source and original research issues) can improve quality and warrant the article to stay. However, that may leave the article more barebones than before and still open to mixed additions and removals (as seen in the history already) as time passes. Merging a list of examples into the Buzzwords article could introduce a more solid boundary of notability that in turn will prevent an overflow of examples. --MagPlex (talk · contribs) 17:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTN the blue links confirm the navigational usefulness and the information is useful. Serving our readers. We have no list of jargon but perhaps we should Lightburst (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (without merging) to Buzzword. Inclusion is arbitrary – different sources are going to have different notions of what exactly constitutes a buzzword (for those very few entries that are even sourced at all). Whether a word even is a buzzword is often context dependent, so this list is currently useless. There's likewise no actual content to merge here. Anyone can expand the main article with a handful of examples with actual in-depth coverage. And then, if such an expansion proves overwhelming to the main article, a list could be spun off. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what's worth merging to Buzzword. I agree that of this is trivial and unsourced. Maybe it could aid in navigation, but the same could would be true if it's merged. Maybe more so because the trivial and unsourced items won't be included anymore. Plus, as it is a lot of them really have nothing in common with each other. It's questionable that a lot of them are even buzzwords. For instance things like wellness, or Diversity. It's almost like Wikipedia is taking a position that they are buzzwords by listing as such and it's borderline original research. Since a lot of the linked articles don't describe the "buzzword" as being one. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've gotten something good out of this already.
While browsing for sources, I found that there's a new episode of the wonderful W1A – their Initial Lockdown Meeting. What they decide is ... (Spoiler)
Their solution to the challenge of the pandemic's great opportunity is to repeat an entire year of programming, as 2020 has been such a washout.
The page in question has a rather dated feel too as, when I check it for current examples, I'm not finding them – no "use case", "surfacing", "block chain", "offer", "social distancing", &c. To bring this page up-to-date, perhaps we should redirect readers to Meta where they can read examples like "Our strategic direction: Service and Equity ⁂ By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us. ..." Deletion would not be sensible because this is such a notable topic that the vacuum would soon be refilled.
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all the issues cited by nom are fixed through normal editing processes. The subject is undoubtedly notable and no one is suggesting that a helpful list of examples shouldn’t exist. All we’re looking for is the right editor(s) to do the work. Gleeanon 13:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, additional sources can include: Buzzwords: A Guide to the Language of Leadership (1974), Management Fads and Buzzwords: Critical-practical Perspectives (2000), and Beyond Buzzwords: Why Some Ideas Fail to Improve Instruction (2017) -- showing the topic is encyclopedic and has staying power in sources over time. Right cite (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to buzzword. I have a really hard time seeing this as a viable stand-alone list. It's not a matter of editing, it's about the possibility of a sensible inclusion criteria/scope. The whole idea of a "buzzword" is too variable/inconsistent/subjective/temporary/context-dependent. We might as well have a list of "jargon" or "slang". It's possible there could be lists with much narrower, clearly-defined scopes (kind of like we have, I think, some lists of localized/domain-specific slang/jargon). It's just too big and too vague. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Places like Consumer Reports [31] give significant coverage to buzzwords. Too many referenced entries to merge to another article. Best to just have it here. Dream Focus 19:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to buzzword. Most of these are highly subjective, poorly sourced, or outdated. A limited selection of those most widely known (synergy probably) should be at the main article but far, far too much of this list is just regular words that someone didn't like in certain contexts and put them in a listicle (but are still widely used and accepted). We need not catalogue such trivia. Reywas92Talk 03:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I agree with Foxnpichu, this article could be merged, it's a fact that this article does not contain all possible buzzwords, but this alone shouldn't weigh to the point of a complete deletion. Garlicolive (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Good show to Ssilvers for fixing up the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Arden (actress)

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

A BLP whose only citation is to IMDB, added 14 years ago, the only other added reference being a link to a primary source, possibly added as promotion. A search for other sources is made difficult because of Jane Arden (director), but nevertheless I wasn't able to find anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The discussion running for over a month, the most comprehensive arguments therein (mainly those of the nominator) support deletion. Kholodovsky had the chance to point to more reliable sources, but only came up with a single interview. Geschichte (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nestor Gayowsky

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

WP:BLP of a diplomat and unsuccessful candidate for political office, not making any strong claim to passing our notability standards for diplomats or politicians. To be fair, at the time this was created we accepted diplomats as "inherently" notable -- but that's long since been deprecated, and the notability test for diplomats now requires properly sourced evidence of their significance, not just technical verification of their existence. But this basically just documents that he exists, not that he had any significant or noteworthy accomplishments in the role -- and losing political candidates aren't notable just for being candidates either, so his candidacy doesn't contribute any extra notability points.
This is also using a really weird, bad referencing format, which just places Name of Newspaper, Date in parentheses directly after the content, without actually providing the title of any specific article in that newspaper. So I ran a search in ProQuest, a database which includes every single newspaper being cited that way here, but I found that the sources fell into one of two camps: either I didn't find any content about Nestor Gayowsky in the specified newspaper on the specified date at all, or I did and it was just a glancing namecheck of Gayowsky's existence in an article whose primary subject was something else. So, again, this was a good faith creation at the time, but our notability standards have changed over the past 15 years and he just doesn't pass the current tests anymore. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What significant coverage in reliable sources? Significant coverage means he is the subject of the source, not just that his name gets mentioned in a source whose subject is something else, and I checked all of the sources named in the article and found nothing that crosses the bar into "significant coverage". Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
INTERVIEW: Nestor Gayowsky, Canada's consul-general for Kiev. — P. 8-9 ukrweekly.com —Kholodovsky (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Q&A interviews in which the person is talking about themselves in the first person aren't notability-making sources. The only kind of source that supports notability is one in which other people are independently analyzing the significance of his work in the third person, not any source in which he's doing the speaking. And the new sources you've added to the article aren't cutting it, either: his notability is also not supported by any content where he's the bylined author of the source, press releases from his own employers, YouTube videos, directory entries on the self-published websites of his own employers, content self-published to people's personal websites, or sources which briefly mention his name a single time in the process of not being about him. You have still shown exactly zero sources that actually make a difference here, because you have shown no sources that represent reliable source coverage about him and his work. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kholodovsky didn't make any legitimate or policy-compliant arguments. He simply misrepresented unreliable sourcing as being worth more than it really is, and said absolutely nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now those advocating keep have not presented sources that establish notability. Relisting to see if such sources can be found or if there is a delete consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| [babble] || 16:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InfoKora

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

Sources not reliable, doesn't meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. Cursory google search brings up no reliable sources to supplement. Bkissin (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 23:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thi Be Nguyen

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a documentary filmmaker and philanthropist, not properly referenced for the purposes of establishing her notability. Of the 18 footnotes here, just one is a real piece of notability-supporting media coverage about her, and even that piece isn't covering her in an "inherently" notable context that would guarantee her an article — it's just covering her in the context of winning a minor local award that isn't prominent enough to confer an instant WP:ANYBIO pass all by itself. All of the 17 other footnotes are to sources that cannot establish notability, such as the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, film directories like IMDb or Cinoche, student media, blogs, a piece where she's the bylined author and not the subject, and several Q&A interviews where she's quoted speaking about a subject (but notability is established by sources in which she is the subject who's being spoken about, not by sources in which she's doing the speaking.) Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much better references than this — as always, wikinotability is not established by the ability to technically verify a fact in primary sources, but by the amount of journalistic coverage she has or hasn't received about the fact in media. Also probable conflict of interest, as the article was created by a WP:SPA who has never contributed to Wikipedia on any other topic but Nguyen and one of her business partners — and who also self-moved their own work on this from draft to mainspace without ever submitting it for a proper AFC review. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


In support of not deleting the article, Nguyen has received the Top20 Personality of the year in diversity Award which is a provincial award alongside the Minister Kathleen Weil. She has won 2 awards for her documentary as recognized by IMDB below. Nguyen's productions has the support of TéléFilm Canada with links below.

We've also been informed that articles on her and her achievements will come out in FORBES and JOURNAL LES AFFAIRES in the month of October 2020. How can changes be made to this article so to maintain its existence. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6859748/awards?ref_=tt_awd https://telefilm.ca/en/news-releases/half-19-documentaries-receiving-funding-will-produced-directed-written-women https://telefilm.ca/en/industry-advisories/sixteen-documentaries-supported-by-telefilm-canada-and-the-rogers-group-of-funds Phoenixx32 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, not every award that exists is an automatic free notability pass for a filmmaker. In film, establishing that a filmmaker is notable because of awards requires national-level awards like the Oscars, the BAFTAs or the Canadian Screen Awards, not just minor film festivals like "Canada China" or "Impact Docs" — and "TOP 20 personalities of diversity" is not a major notability-making award, either: even a basic WP:ANYBIO pass requires top-level distinctions like the Order of Canada, not just every single award that exists in the world.
Secondly, notability cannot be referenced to primary sources like IMDb or Telefilm — to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, a person (regardless of her achievements) has to be referenced to media coverage about her in reliable sources. And not interviews where she's talking about herself or other things in the first person, either: sources where other people are independently writing or speaking about the significance of her work in the third person. Simply put, nothing you can say about her counts as a notability claim at all until journalists have reported it as news in real media. If you have to source a statement to a directly affiliated person or organization's own self-published website about themselves, because media coverage reporting the statement as news does not exist, then that statement is automatically not notable enough to guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia — it doesn't count as a notability claim until media consider it important enough to write a news story about it.
Thirdly, we don't keep articles just because people claim that media coverage that doesn't already exist today is going to exist in the future. That's a thing that anybody can simply say about absolutely anything or anybody that exists, and even about things that don't actually exist at all — so if just saying that new media coverage that doesn't already exist today is in the pipeline to come out in the future were all it took to shut down a deletion discussion, then even outright hoaxes wouldn't be deletable anymore. So we don't create or keep articles on the expectation of future media coverage that doesn't already exist yet — if and when such coverage does get published, then we can recreate an article if the new sources genuinely establish the topic's notability, but until that time we can only evaluate sources that have already been published.
So in order to save the article, what you need to do is show that she's already been the subject of a lot more than just one piece of third party media coverage about her accomplishments. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. While I found additional interviews with Nguyen [32] [33] and routine coverage about the opening of her exhibit [34] I could not find any independant coverage of her work to satisfy WP:GNG, and the sources in the article do not supply the notability needed. I searched French Canadian newspapers and websites but did not find additional sources. I also searched Google, JSTOR, ProQuest, Gale and NYT. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| [babble] || 15:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Luck Street

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

Another underground band. As per Discogs none of their albums have been released on significant indie labels. Geschichte (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians -related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zidane Awad

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

A non-notable actor and entrepreneur with no significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources have no mention of the subject. GSS 💬 14:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 14:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 14:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 14:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terran Federation (Blake's 7)

[edit]
Terran Federation (Blake's 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article with no significant coverage that can be found on a search, as per WP:BEFORE. There are passing mentions in the context of the plot or the overall setting of the program, but nothing "directly and in detail" to pass the WP:GNG, WP:PLOT, or WP:WAF. Jontesta (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Falco

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

Very minor character who was unceremoniously dropped from the show after a few episodes. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The only reception is a passing mention while discussing a completely different minor character, who also disappeared with mostly no notice. A search doesn't reveal anything better. Lacks the real world context and reception to meet WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Jontesta (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perigreen

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

The company does not meet the notability requirements. Could not find in-depth coverage in RS. Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marathon Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP, could not find coverage in multiple reliable sources. Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerhub (website)

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

non notable website, no independent coverage whatsoever, fails WP:NWEB Praxidicae (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no notability, trash sources, and the user just wouldn't leave it in draft, so it gets assessed with main ns criteria. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above (I'm assuming that moving it back to draft is no longer an option) Spiderone 21:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks all for your time, I'm just fustrated about the article, and am sure one of you might have being at this stage where you believe an article should be in the namespace just based on you where as it's not notable enough to be in the mainspace, I will just like the article to be in draft space for other editors to work on it then send it through afc process I promise not to move it. You can also remove the bad links I promise not to add them again. Thanks all for keeping Wikipedia safe. Stay safe guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynndonald (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that am protecting this article, but there are many articles here on wiki that doesn't even meet the notability guidelines, no reference whatsoever, some only link to the official website and maybe some directory listing and they were on the mainspace, I can name few if you ask. Lynndonald (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There will always be some that slip under the radar. You can help by either adding sources to them or, if sources can't be found, putting them up for deletion. Unsourced or poorly sourced articles existing in mainspace is never a good reason for creating another poorly sourced article. Spiderone 23:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to TheCoolTV. ‑Scottywong| [squeal] || 16:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of former TheCoolTV affiliates

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of former TheCoolTV affiliates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable topic, doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to TheCoolTV but I don't think this would be relevant enough to add to the article, as well as it would be merging completely unverified information. Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally close as delete but I was asked to relist to give it more time for a discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 13:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep. Geschichte (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Seas genre

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

I see no evidence that this has been discussed anywhere as a real genre, beyond just being entertainment set in islands within Oceania. Of course, there are certain tropes that you would expect to find in something set in the South Seas, but that's no different from there being tropes associated with, say, films set in Paris, and there is no "Paris genre" article. One option, short of deletion, is to just rename this article to something like "List of films set in islands in the Pacific Ocean" or "Pacific islands in popular culture", or something like that. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep The nominator is proposing a title change, not deletion. The South Seas is a common setting for films and fiction and there are several books written about this. For example, see South Sea Maidens: Western Fantasy and Sexual Politics in the South Pacific which discusses the topic in detail – "Donovan's Reef (1963) might be taken as a useful benchmark in the decline of the South Sea genre." It seems to be a genre just like the Western (genre) but debating this is not a matter for AfD. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubbify per WP:OR. This is mostly OR at the moment, but the GBooks search result suggests that this is a real thing. I don't think WP:CSK applies because the nomination suggests WP:OR concerns, which is a core policy matter. I do disagree that the article is unsalvageable, however. And I actually don't think a name change would be appropriate, since scholarship suggests that it is indeed a real genre. Rather, the article just needs some real sourcing, which appears available. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While you might not see much "discussion" of this genre in today's film and literature industries, it was a genre at one time. The books in "References" and the link in "External links" should be sufficient to demonstrate this. The article does need a lot of work with respect to specific citations, and that should be noted at the top of the article. The point that the article seems to list any "entertainment set in the islands within Oceania" is a valid point. I cannot say whether or not the films and novels that are listed truly fit the South Seas Genre. That is one reason citations are needed. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeepRootLinux

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

The article is basically an advertisement of this tiny company. I could not find any significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. References in the article are either unreliable or just name drops. M4DU7 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parcroft Community Junior School

[edit]
Parcroft Community Junior School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small junior (ages 7 to 11) school, closed in 2009. No indication of significance. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of golf courses in The Villages, Florida

[edit]
List of golf courses in The Villages, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of non-notable local golf courses with no substantial coverage of any outside primary sources. Subject is adequately covered in the parent article. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northampton Town and District Football League

[edit]
Northampton Town and District Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An amateur short-lived league that does not pass WP:GNG. Evidence of WP:BEFORE:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My main aim with those searches was to see if the league actually did go back further than 2003. It doesn't appear that it did or, if it did, it was just not notable. Spiderone 11:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've Googled some of the names of the clubs that have won the league before but it only seems to be coming up with namesakes really. Spiderone 15:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen

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

No indication of notability per WP:NACADEMIC or WP:BIO. Ten cites in Google Scholar, and the only coverage I can find of him online is in the local news blogs e-pao.net, KanglaOnline.com, and manipur.org, mostly articles written by him, and none of which appear to be WP:RS.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kangleipak Historical And Cultural Research Centre. Captain Calm (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kangleipak Historical And Cultural Research Centre at around the same time. noq (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kindly review if this is secondary source or not [1]

Luwanglinux (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Konsam, Kulladhwaja. "A booklet by Kulladhwaja". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
It looks to be a reliable secondary source (book review). Are there any others? Spiderone 17:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ Spiderone yes this is also a secondary source [1]
@Spiderone this one is from a book writen by other writer thats all I get so far I rest my apeal here [2]

References

  1. ^ "Translation of our holy book Puya in English A visionary approach By Samarjit Kambam". e-pao.net. Retrieved 2020-10-21.
  2. ^ Devi, Nunglekpam Premi (2018-05-25). Short Essays on Women and Society: Manipuri Women through the Century. FSP Media Publications.
Those are passing mentions I'm afraid. No WP:SIGCOV demonstrated. Spiderone 23:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kangleipak Historical And Cultural Research Centre

[edit]
Kangleipak Historical And Cultural Research Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:notability. noq (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Raghu, Ningthoujam. "Awang Koubru Asuppa and Notion for Origin of Obliquity of Earth and Planets – KanglaOnline". Retrieved 2020-10-21.
What for? It does not mention the centre so cannot be used to establish notability of the centre. noq (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
noq (talk) yes there are less article and journal about the centre since it is a non govt self funded private research centre.well shall I wait till such journals or articles(can be considred secondary) are published and can be found in the internet.But I am showing you the influence of the works of the centre so far in promoting official Indian language Meetei Mayek and digging Manipur history and culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luwanglinux (talk • contribs) 12:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately (or not depending) "the influence of the works of the centre so far in promoting official Indian language" isn't a Wikipedia notability criteria. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro (talk If if it does not meet wikipedia criteria its automatic to be delated.I have no problem with that but you attacking me personally regarding creation of an article seems little childish.Luwanglinux (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't liberally put serious accusations such as WP:PERSONALATTACKS on people, I have only pointed out issues with your edits which clearly permeate into this article. Gotitbro (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelrahman H. Elsayed

[edit]
Abdelrahman H. Elsayed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass GNG. Does not pass WP:NPROF, awards in article are student or early career awards and as evident in Google Scholar Profile his impact so far is low. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 10:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. All the awards listed in the article are indeed student and trainee level awards and don't contribute to academic notability under WP:PROF. GoogleScholar gives him h-index of just 2, with his GScholar profile still listing him as a PhD candidate. Probably a fresh PhD. Nsk92 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Lova

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

Speedy was declined, so promoted to AfD. Article fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN. When I did a google search it was mainly how to get hold of her music through music websites, I saw no interviews, reviews, etc to indicate importance. Govvy (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 09:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 09:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 09:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 09:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: 95% of those Google results are for the publication Buzdefou (translation: "crazy buzz") but very few of them are about the subject. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: It would be helpful if you could comment on the sources I found, viz. this, this, this, this and this amongst others. I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the subject to comment, hopefully you are. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I truly believe and I don't really want to be rude about Johnpacklambert, but he just votes for the sake of voting and is not interested in truly analysing the articles for AfD. I've seen it for a long long time, and to be honest every time seems pointless waste of everyones time asking him anything! :/ Govvy (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I looked at the five sources you gave above. They remind me of the new blog spam that we see in English. Looks like paid promotion to me.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Foster (footballer)

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

Footballer who has played one - 1 - game of his sport. There is no demonstrated coverage in non-statistic sources, nor is any coverage likely given his totally peripheral role in football. There is a crystal-clear consensus to delete footballers with only 1 appearance and no coverage, for instance here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, and I could have gone on further. Geschichte (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Stark

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

Footballer who has played one - 1 - game of his sport. There is no demonstrated coverage in non-statistic sources, nor is any coverage likely given his totally peripheral role in football. There is a crystal-clear consensus to delete footballers with only 1 appearance and no coverage, for instance here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, and I could have gone on further. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Young (footballer, born 1979)

[edit]
Chris Young (footballer, born 1979) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who has played one - 1 - game of his sport. There is no demonstrated coverage in non-statistic sources, nor is any coverage likely given his totally peripheral role in football. There is a crystal-clear consensus to delete footballers with only 1 appearance and no coverage, for instance here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, and I could have gone on further. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shun Sato (footballer, born 1990)

[edit]
Shun Sato (footballer, born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who has played one - 1 - game of his sport. There is no demonstrated coverage in non-statistic sources, nor is any coverage likely given his totally peripheral role in football. There is a crystal-clear consensus to delete footballers with only 1 appearance and no coverage, for instance here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, and I could have gone on further. Geschichte (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomohiro Hirakawa

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

Footballer who has played one - 1 - game of his sport. There is no demonstrated coverage in non-statistic sources, nor is any coverage likely given his totally peripheral role in football. There is a crystal-clear consensus to delete footballers with only 1 appearance and no coverage, for instance here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, and I could have gone on further. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would still argue that the AfD is still valid. Two appearances is still only a borderline NFOOTY pass so the fact that it fails GNG massively is still a relevant point Spiderone 08:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, fair enough. I’d like to know the consensus for how many pro appearances it takes to pass WP:NFOOTY without passing WP:GNG though. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I too would like to know. As far as I know, there hasn't been a clear line drawn yet but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Spiderone 17:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroto Ichikawa

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

Footballer who has played one - 1 - game of his sport. There is no demonstrated coverage in non-statistic sources, nor is any coverage likely given his totally peripheral role in football. There is a crystal-clear consensus to delete footballers with only 1 appearance and no coverage, for instance here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, and I could have gone on further. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prito Reza

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

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for photographers. Also this article contains content that is written like an advertisement/portfolio. Seems self-promotion. ~Moheen (keep talking) 07:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen (keep talking) 07:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen (keep talking) 07:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen (keep talking) 07:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong| [express] || 16:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SOS Sheikh Secondary School

[edit]
SOS Sheikh Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't cite any references and I was unable to any in a WP:BEFORE. that would pass either the WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Likely if there any out there that I missed they are extremely trivial anyway. As this school is extremely small and what is included in the article is pretty WP:MILL. As secondary schools are not inherently notable anymore per the RfC in 2017, the discussion should be about the quality of sourcing and notability guidelines. Not rehashing SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can either of you provide links to multiple in-depth sources under that name then? Bevause when I looked all I could find was two book name drops. There was nothing that actually discussed it though and notability isn't about the number of Google search results. Adamant1 (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't hit the same search as earlier today but there are several easily found in English. [40] [41] [42] SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like Google Et al. can give pretty different results depending on the person, where they are located, and a myriad of other factors. Unfortunately, it is what is. Although it does make this whole thing little more cumbersome. Especially with how badly nominators tend to be treated the second someone finds a sources they weren't able to for whatever reason. That said, the first two sources you provided are rather mediocre name drops. For instance the first one is about two of the teachers being shot. Which has nothing to do with the school. Whereas, the second one is about the school winning an award. Which WP:NORG clearly says is trivial coverage. I wouldn't have to bludgeon the process (your words) if people took the time to make sure their sources were relevant and usable, because it's not the nominators job and I sure has hell rather not waste my time doing things other people should. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that a lot of historical sources that go more in-depth are only available in huge public libraries, with little snippets on Google books. I think what qualifies it as notable is that its the birth-place of Somalia's National Anthem according to Hsinhua Weekly - Issues 26-52 - Page 21: "to declare independence we young teachers of the Sheikh Secondary School composed the song “Wake Up Somalia". It was also the first English language school in what would become the Somali Republic. I don't know if that automatically makes it inherently notable because of its historic status. I'm still getting used to the guidelines. -- GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that personally. Except clearly something isn't automatically notable just by virtue of being "historical" (whatever that means) and there's no way to tell if we can't find sources because they are offline in library books, or if we can't because they just don't exist in the first place. Although, I agree it's likely some do exist in libraries where we can't access them. But saying so is not a guideline based notability argument. Maybe the guidelines should be more lenient about it and other systemic bias issues. Personally I think they probably should be, but my opinion doesn't ultimately matter and AfDs aren't the place to hash those things out either. I do know there though that there has to be a balance between not creating a bunch of content lacking, un-referenced stub articles while also considering systemic bias. Which I do, but there just isn't a cut and dry, simple solution. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, done! -- GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Foreman

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a businessman, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion standards for businesspeople. As always, every businessman is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists: the notability test requires some evidence of distinction, such as notable business awards or sufficient reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. But there are just three sources here, of which two are dead links from a limited circulation local interest magazine, and the one that comes from a solid daily newspaper is primarily about his company, and not substantively enough about Foreman to singlehandedly get him over the bar as an individual all by itself -- and the article claims nothing about him that is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Low Bin Tick

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Not backed up by any independent, reliable sources with most sources being second or first party. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - he gets plenty of passing mentions from a quick Google search. Some might argue that the sheer number of passing mentions might make him notable but I would argue that it's not enough. Ideally, we would want at least one in-depth source. Searching his name in Chinese comes up with plenty of references about "Liu Mingde", who works in aviation, but this is a different person to Low Bin Tick. Spiderone 09:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drizilik

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

Article about a non-notable musician who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 10:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 10:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Charm of Others

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites and other wikis. PROD declined because of 2 external links that were added, but they are just film summaries from festivals it was played at. They aren't reviews, nor could I find any. I feel that this film fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep It was selected for three international film festivals, however this doesn't specifically make it notable - I was not able to find any reviews for this film. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1. "It was selected for three international film festivals," This does not do anything to establish notability. 2. "and the director is relatively well known," Notability is not inherited. WP:NOTINHERITED 3. "No doubt more sources in Japanese." WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST is not a valid argument in AfD. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I see I was mistaken, I thougth selection for film festicals established notabliity, but that's not specifically mentioned in WP:NFILM - I'm not able to find any reviews for this film, so I'll change my vote.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIt has in fact won an award, which makes it notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited and a director being well known doesn't establish notability. There is no information about the reliability of Japanese sources, and articles should tend to lean towards English sources if there are such available. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 18:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the creator of the article, and while it has been nominated for a number of international festivals, which would indicate its value, unfortunately apart from that, there is nothing solid to indicate its notability as recognised by WP:NFILM. There are no reviews for it, no commentary on it I can find, it's not of any historical value. It looks like nothing else has been found, so I am happy for it to be deleted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I hadn't noticed that award (and I spent a fair bit of time searching, so thanks) - that just pushes it over the line I guess - winning one award does make it notable under WP:NFILM, So I;ll update the page with that information, and I will change my vote to keep. Thanks Atlantic306 Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koester, Missouri

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

GNIS gives it a census code of U6, which is saved for places that don't have legal recognition, it seems. [43]. A place needs to have legal recognition to pass WP:GEOLAND. The topos generally only show a small handful of buildings and a spring. My application for newspapers.com access at WP:LIBRARY hasn't been processed yet, but Google books is almost entirely bringing up just people with this last name. Hog Farm Bacon 18:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Les Edgerton

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

BLP with no sources. A search turned up no independent reliable sources--I found one article that cited Edgerton's book Hooked in a footnote, but that's it. blameless 01:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. blameless 01:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by MarkH21 below, and the sources I have linked above are enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR #3. Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While the nominator's work is diligent, the delete option did not reach consensus. Geschichte (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meinert, Missouri

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

Don't think this place passes WP:GEOLAND. The State Historical Society calls it a small trading point, which isn't a sign of notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tingley, Missouri). I'm finding some Google books hits for a Lutheran Church at the site, as well as one old source that mentioned something being on the window in the store at Meinert. GNIS gives it a census code of U6, which generally seems to be for places without the legal recognition needed to pass WP:GEOLAND. The topos show three buildings at the site, one of which is the church. I'm not seeing how a church, a store, and apparently one other building passes GEOLAND, and GNG doesn't seem to be met, either. Hog Farm Bacon 02:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable blip on a map fails WP:GEOLAND. KidAd talk 02:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid stub. Meinert once was a largely German community per historical society source, and an active trading point to boot. If contemporary maps show the community site has dwindled, update article with "little remains of the original site".72.49.7.25 (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A trading point is more than an empty building or a name on a map. It's a place which at least for some period in history was an actual, tho possibly small, community-in this case consisting also of a church, and dwellings. A place which has those basic elements is (or in this case, was)., an actual community: a meeting place, a trading place., and a place where people lived. Even without the church I would support it--such trading posts are of historical importance. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DGG: - And can you point me to a guideline that says Trading points are inherently notable? I'm aware of one that says that legally recognized populated places are notable, and this does not seem to be legally recognized as a populated place. There's a difference between a community and a community that passes WP:GEOLAND. Not everywhere where someone once lived/worshipped/bought crap gets the GEOLAND pass. If you don't like that, you might need a RFC. Hog Farm Bacon 14:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The way we interpret GEOLAND is by discussing individual articles at afd. Reading it, I see that "On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability. " I see that an anon ed. says they have sources, so they should be added.

We are normally on all subjects much more flexible in accepting weak articles on historically existing or historically relevant topics. Doing a wider interpretation in such cases is within our discretion. Guidelines are called guidelines because they describe what we usually do. The consensus here will either agree that this should be an exception, or not. DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source the IP mentions is the source mentioned in the nom that calls it a "trading point", I believe. It's a solid two sentences. Hog Farm Bacon 15:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsebelda Saint George Church

[edit]
Tsebelda Saint George Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this meets WP:NBUILD. That would "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". (t · c) buidhe 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear that these are the same building. St George is a very common dedication in the area. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 02:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Been sitting here for almost a month. Geschichte (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruger Bowen .500 Maximum

[edit]
Ruger Bowen .500 Maximum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails guidance outlined at User:AliveFreeHappy/Notability (firearms)#Firearms Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 02:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 06:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Nadir Bin Ali

[edit]
Md. Nadir Bin Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not present any strong claims to notability. The subject is not a full professor, has two publications, and does not have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the requirements of GNG.

"Vice-president of the Internet Society Bangladesh Chapter" is not a claim of notability. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein

[edit]
Peter, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced genealogical entry. WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NOTGENEALOGY. DrKay (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. DrKay (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Views split between keeping and drafting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madinah Wilson-Anton

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

WP:BLP of a person who as of today is notable only as an as yet unelected candidate for political office. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and neither predictions about their prospects of winning nor the historic firsts that they will represent if they win make them notable just for being candidates either. The existence of a couple of hits of campaign coverage also does not hand candidates a GNG-based exemption from NPOL, because every candidate can always show a couple of hits of campaign coverage. As well, the fact that the election is only a couple of weeks away, and thus the article will have to be recreated if she wins, is not a valid reason to waive policy in the meantime: if we were to set a rule that there was a moratorium on deleting premature campaign brochures for unelected candidates X days out from the election, then every candidate in the country could just suddenly flood Wikipedia with their campaign brochures on day X for that last minute publicity push — so no matter how close the election is, we still have to treat articles about unelected candidates exactly the same right now as we would any other time. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if she wins, but nothing stated here entitles her to already have an article in advance of the election. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Delete - Does not currently meet WP:NPOL because they do not hold political office. If she wins in November, then she would meet the guidelines. If it makes more sense to move this to draftspace for now or to delete and start from scratch, that is up to other editors. Bkissin (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected candidate for public office are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The standard for an unelected candidates for state legislature is delete under WP:NPOL as expressed in WP:POLOUTCOMES, and as such, this page should be deleted/draftified. With the election in 15 days (as of this post), I do believe it makes certain sense to wait, despite the very valid concerns raised by Bearcat about this project being flooded with campaign brochures for a last-minute publicity push. --Enos733 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject doesn't pass WP:NPOL, and doesn't have enough sourcing to clear the deliberately high bar that we set to prevent Wikipedia from devolving into a repository of campaign brochures for everybody who ever ran as a candidate for anything, then how does she meet general N standards? Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I may have misunderstood. I amend my vote to Draftify in anticipation of the election. Lastchapter (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastchapter, while avoiding the devolution into a repository of failed candidates is laudable, the counter-argument, in Ms Wilson-Anton case, is that she is a first.
The first person to climb Mt Everest was extra notable, due to the extra coverage he got for being first. The one Sherpa who accompanied him also received a lot of RS coverage, and merits a standalone article. Eventually Everest climbing stopped getting floods of RS coverage, and most later Everest climbers didn't measure up to GNG. Most of those who died trying to climb Everest don't receive enough RS coverage to merit a standalone article. But, if someone set out to climb Everest, and they received RS coverage because they were, for instance, the first muslim woman to attempt to climb Everest, we would consider them notable, even if their attempt failed.
Ms Wilson-Anton received coverage that focussed on her being the first muslim with a chance to enter the Delaware legislature. That argues for her measuring up to GNG, even if she will not measure up the NPOL unless she is elected. (FWIW, it seems like for her district, she is a shoe-in, with some reporting treating her defeat of whomever the Republicans put up to challenge her as foregone conclusion.)
You will see participants, in AFD, whose arguments boil down to "Well, I don't consider this person's accomplishments significant enough to be notable...", who discount RS coverage they consider insignificant. Personally, I consider that is a disturbing mistake, and a retreat from the kind of strict observance of WP:NPOV I would like to see. None of us are RS ourselves. If we let ourselves, or the contributors we work with, discount meaningful RS coverage, we are usurping the role of real newspaper editors. Geo Swan (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - probably does fall short of our notability standards for BLPs and politicians currently. It was interesting to see coverage in an Indonesian news source that looked quite extensive. Probably WP:TOOSOON but draft seems like a sensible alternative to deletion that should be considered. Spiderone 22:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Hiiiii I'm kinda new to Wikipedia and I actually didn't mean to publish the page, I was going to keep it as a Draft until she was formally elected to the State Legislature. My bad. I hope you'll consider drafting it for now. User:Stanloona2020 6:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Draftify The election is only a couple weeks away, right? She'll be notable very shortly. Or she won't be. We'll find out soon. SportingFlyer T·C 17:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. KidAd talk 23:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while an individual who is a not yet elected candidate doesn't measure up to NPOL, that individual may, nevertheless measure up to GNG. Wilson-Anton did receive some coverage, prior to her candidacy, which means she is not a BLP1E. And, unelected candidates who represent a first, first gay candidate, first disabled candidate, first female candidate, or in her case, first muslim candidate, may get sufficient coverage to measure up to GNG.
I added some references and new material, and I suggest she measures up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being the first X holder of a political office may be (but still isn't guaranteed to be) a notability claim that makes a person in a not inherently notable position more notable than the norm, such as if a person's election as a smalltown mayor simultaneously made them the first LGBT or Muslim officeholder in their entire country's history (but not if it made them merely the first in their own small town). Merely being a candidate for a position that they will become the first X holder of the office if they win is not — because for one thing, that doesn't necessarily make them the "first X candidate" in and of itself (there may have been other X candidates before them who simply didn't win), and for another, if they lose then the whole thing resets and the next X person who comes after them can make the exact same "will be the first X if they win" claim again. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Sandstein 18:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry David Montgomery, 3rd Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

[edit]
Henry David Montgomery, 3rd Viscount Montgomery of Alamein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A7 declined on the basis that "Contesting A7: the subject claims to be a descendant of notable relatives"/ .

I do not consider that a credible claim of significance , and there is nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historical characters in the Southern Victory Series

[edit]
Historical characters in the Southern Victory Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article consists of a very long list of historical people who are somehow mentioned in a work of fiction. The entries generally consist of random trivia or minor plot points, and most of them are only a line or two long. The article has two citations, one of them a dead link, and no incoming links other than redirects and other lists about the series. I don't believe this is notable or appropriate content for Wikipedia. Andaphantie (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles are also nominated:

Lists of characters in the Southern Victory series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fictional characters in the Southern Victory Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Institutions in the Southern Victory Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The latter two lists have multiple issues flagged already and share most of the issues of the "Historical characters" list. However, they're more fleshed out in terms of content and I could see an argument that, assuming the material is notable enough, they're worth keeping. In light of the accepted merger proposal on Southern Victory, I find it unlikely that it qualifies as notable enough. If these lists are kept, they should still be trimmed massively and possibly also merged into the parent article. (As a side note: the merger was decided six months ago, but does not seem to be implemented. Possibly the articles to be merged should also be incorporated into AfD?) Andaphantie (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- It would be a horrible idea to load the encyclopedia up with lists of "Historical characters in Suchandsuch" and "Fictional characters in Suchandsuch" for every work of fiction involving time travel or alternate history. We'd end up with endless clutter. Some things are just, by their nature, not suitable for an encyclopedia and these articles are among them. Furthermore, they are poorly sourced and excessively detailed. I suggest Wikia would be a better home for this content. Reyk YO! 07:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - There are no reliable sources that cover any of these topics as a group or set, so it fails WP:LISTN. There is no information on any on the nominated lists that is being cited to reliable, secondary sources, so there is nothing to preserve or merge. Rorshacma (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Britannia's Fist Trilogy

[edit]
The Britannia's Fist Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm sorry to nominate this, as it seems multiple people have put in a lot of effort writing it. However, the article consists solely of an extremely long and detailed plot summary, which doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. It has no secondary sources and essentially no incoming links other than redirects. The author is themselves not very notable; their page is a stub and none of their other works have articles. I'd suggest that the authors or anyone else who finds value in this article move it to a different site. Andaphantie (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature -related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greenacres, Kentucky

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

It's not entirely clear exactly what this is, but it looks to fail WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Rennick's index calls it a locale, which by definition is not the legally recognized, populated place needed to pass GEOLAND. Begins to appear on maps in 1967, with no obvious connection of buildings. Newspapers.com and Google Books turn up a street in Owensboro, a neighborhood of Louisville, and a school near the Indiana/Kentucky line, none of which geographically fit this Greenacres. Found one source suggesting this is a trailer park. Whatever it is, it's fairly clear it's not notable. Hog Farm Bacon 02:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bigg Boss (Telugu season 3). T. Canens (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bigg Boss 3 Buzzz

[edit]
Bigg Boss 3 Buzzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be merged to Bigg Boss (Telugu season 3). This is a post-broadcast show completely tied to the main show that doesn't show any independent notability. Ravensfire (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey, Kentucky

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

And we return to our tour of non-notable places in Kentucky, picking up where we left off in Lyon County. Rennick doesn't mention a Dewey in Lyon County, while the topos show an isolated Dewey School. Can't find any newspapers.com or Google Books coverage suggesting a community here, although I found one very brief reference to the school [50]. As apparently a school, not a community, it fails WP:GEOLAND; in turn the school fails WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Non-notable. Hog Farm Bacon 02:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 02:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intro to photography

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

This is a newly created article which seems to primarily a summary of several other pages and then moves into an essay with lack of inline citations. WP:NOT applies.. I don't think this warrants it's own article since all the other relevant information already exists in the other articles. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thumperward: this particular page is a summary of a summary, all the information is pulled from the Photography page, with the exception of the Genres of Photograph section. Photography consists of multiple summaries of the same pages this one points to. This just seems redundant. The extra section of the Genres could just be added to the other page when properly cited. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might there be a better solution to this than immediately hauling a new editor's first contributions to AfD? I swear that I don't know what some people expect of our contributors sometimes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "Introduction to...X" only used for highly technical or scientific subjects? I thought I had commended the creator for their effort and potential, but I guess it was not expressed strongly enough? How about renaming the article "Genres of photography", or "Photographic genres"; the the duplicated content can be deleted, and the article creator can develop the article in relation to the many photographic genres out there (i.e. medical photography/imaging, cyanotypes, photograms, pin-hole photography, cameraless photography, micro-photography, etc.)? Netherzone (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that photography is not a highly technical or scientific subject would be greatly relieving to the many thousands of people who could give up researching it and take up, say, fly fishing instead. But repurposing of any form would be welcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – bradv🍁 16:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

86 (term)

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

This article fails WP:NOTDICT. It consists of a definition, etymology, and a couple examples of attested uses, and it's difficult to see how it could expand beyond that. Notability for a word itself is a very high bar, else we could include articles like this for practically any word (especially recent-ish slangy terms with etymology being discussed). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering this has become part of the current political news cycle, the term has gained a lot of relevance. That is why it became relevant at this point in time, after all... I came to this article to see what the fuss was about after hearing about it on the news. Deleting it at this point seems rash, because it could have an influence on things, and thus allow for an opportunity for the article to expand. I think waiting to see how events play out would be the best course of action. -Matirion (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that I have absolutely no idea what any of the fuss is about. I got here while patrolling the edit request queue, saw an article that fails NOTDICT (as I detail in my nomination statement), and nominated it for that reason alone. A word needs wide cultural significance to be notable. See Ain't for one good example where it is. Even if there's some hubbub over someone's use of the word, it doesn't make the word itself notable. It might be worth talking about in the article of the person who said it, or even possibly not at all (see WP:NOTNEWS). Another example is Controversies about the word niggardly. The word niggardly is itself not notable, even though there have been quite a few high-profile dust-ups about it. And here, it's the totality of incidents that warrants an article. Any one by itself almost surely wouldn't. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While 86 was granted some scrutiny from recent events, I believe we should evaluate this article in the bigger picture. In other words, will this be relevant tomorrow? A few weeks down the line? A month later? I don't think it'll maintain the views to sustain itself just from that angle. Therefore, we should focus the argument on long-term notability. 47.148.108.245 (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not  86 this article. As Matirion indicates, the term exploded today onto the political landscape of the 2020 United States presidential election, meaning many users will turn to Wikipedia for a better understanding of its usage and wider context. It would send a very bad signal to delete an article just because the Trump campaign hijacked this colorful piece of Americana by circulating a screenshot of our definition that included "killing someone." NedFausa (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my response above. But in short, none of that is relevant. The word itself isn't notable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to relevant Wiktionary articles wikt:86 and wikt:eighty-six. To be honest, I cannot find a decent policy-based argument around the appeal to how Wikipedia is not a dictionary, whereas Wiktionary is a dictionary. I’ve been looking at sources for 86’ing, and all of them are about etymology, which fits uncomfortably close to what the policy is describing. On the other hand, I don’t recommend deleting it because 86 is a well-known acronym that people will want to look for, even outside of the Twitter controversy. Wiktionary is a wiki that provides articles about words qua words, and most discussion about this word is etymological. Reference to definitions of words can be added to these articles. If a definition is not yet found there, one should find it used in a speech or similar published source (tweets would not count, but there are better sources out there anyway) and put it in. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete this. It is a current political event, in that the Michigan Governor has nick nack on her desk that says “86 45” , meaning get rid of Trump’s presidency, while a Trumpers are now claiming that is a death threat. The meaning of the term is being debated, and this site helps explain its history from the 1930’s about it being a restaurant term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:51C1:6828:BCCC:5560:E5D1:191A (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • yep, delete it. wikipedia is not a dictionary, and yet almost the entire entry is the equivalent of a wiktionary entry - Cdjknu (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the term receives more coverage especially from reliable sources in the next few days or Soft redirect to Wiktionary. If this article is kept, then there should be a section covering the Whitmer-Trump Campaign controversy. Personally I am inclined towards keeping the article as long as it briefly explains the "WhItMeR WaNtS TrUmP DeAd" fiasco going on and doesn't give too much importance to the Trumpers' definition of "86". 45.251.33.218 (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if there's something to say about the controversy, it's at a different article (theirs, or even a new one), but not here. One kerfuffle over a word, no matter how huge, doesn't suddenly make the word itself notable, even if the kerfuffle is. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not satisfying WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Almost all of the cited sources relate to etymology, and the remainder verify usage. No objection to soft redirect to Wiktionary:eighty-six. I would, however, compare 23 skidoo (phrase). Like 86, there is enduring mystery about the origins of 23 and 23 skidoo. Unlike 86, though, 23 skiddoo has added notability as apparently the first slang fad of the twentieth century. Cnilep (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know we aren't voting, but I think this should be deleted. I think Wikipedia acting as a dictionary both dilutes it's functional utility and duplicates other more "definitive" sources. OC-Highlander — Preceding unsigned comment added by OC-Highlander (talk • contribs) 07:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original creator here. I have no problem with deletion here under DICTDEF, though as has been pointed out the inadvertent timing here means that recreations will need to be monitored for a while. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the article and believe it should be retained. It provides good references and sources and goes well beyond what is found in a dictionary. The phrase is used in many contexts and it helps bring people to Wikipedia. I believe its removal would reduce the usefulness of the site as a whole. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion is not appropriate as there are several sensible alternatives to deletion such as merger to another page such as
  1. 86 (number)
  2. Glossary of American terms not widely used in the United Kingdom
  3. List of restaurant terminology
which all already mention the topic. But it would be better to keep the page as it clearly passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT as there is extensive interest, study and commentary on the uncertain history of this usage. For a good example, see The Atlantic – A Restaurant ‘Eighty-Sixed’ Sarah Huckabee Sanders. What Does That Mean?. That good source was not cited in the article until I did some clean-up just now and so there's clearly scope for improvement. As WP:ATD says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One can find magazine articles about interesting words all over the place; that doesn't mean the word itself can sustain a Wikipedia article. See my example above about how we don't (and shouldn't) have an entry for niggardly, even though we do have an article about several noteworthy kerfuffles over its usage. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
niggardly is a blue link so we do have an entry for it. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, it's a blue link because it's a redirect to an article that's not about the word on its own. The word on its own is most definitely not notable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The word on its own" – what does that mean? Things only have significance as a result of their interaction. If something only exists in splendid isolation then it is therefore not notable. See If a tree falls in a forest... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh No. Deacon Vorbis is deleting whole sections to favor his deletion nomination. I have seen this movie before and it always ends in frustration. Edit warring is not in the cards for me today, but if anyone is interested here are the two sections he 86'd. Lightburst (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't helpful. If you're not going to be helpful, stop participating. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is emphatically not about doing whatever any particular mob wants it to do, especially not for such an awful wad of non-reasons as just provided. You'd think from the way people respond here that this were a petition to delete the term from the English language, not to fold one short article into another. I wish I'd just deleted the excessive stuff in the first place, thus short-circuiting this mess. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your comments. I have given guideline based reasons for keeping the term. I only pontificated on the page views. I then improved the article with RS. And the nominator began deleting sections of the article to favor the nomination which states that this is nothing more than a dictionary definition. I will now continue adding RS to the article. Lightburst (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is overwhelmingly clear, so there is no mess here. Secondly, it's pity for you then that you can't circumvent consensus (or what you call "short-circuiting this mess"). --Cold Season (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Upon request of the nominator, I will give my opinion. There are sociopolitical and cultural aspects to this term, as such this is not simply a DICTDEF (even if there was an effort to 86 these sections from the article by the nominator). --Cold Season (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 86 (number) or Delete - I don't believe that this needs a stand-alone article given how almost every number article handles the slang for it. For an example, the slang for 88 is listed on 88 (number) in either the 'Cultural significance' section or the 'Other fields' section. The slang for 69 is listed on [[69 (number)#In other fields|69 (number) in the 'Other fields' section. The disambiguation page for 61 mentions that it can be used as slang for the character Ы. The 250 (number) article lists the slang for 250 in Chinese in the lede. The 64 (number) article lists that 64 used to be slang for the Commodore 64 prior to the launch of the Nintendo 64. The 25 (number) article has a section for 'Slang names' though with only one entry. Similarly, 500 (number) has a 'Slang names' section. For a final example, though not the last example, 50 (number) covers that it is used as slang for a Police Office in the 'In other fields' section.
This extends out a bit to other numbers with the 13 (number) article having a section titled "Lucky and unlucky" with links to the article Triskaidekaphobia (a phobia) and a Disambiguation page called Lucky Thirteen. The article 4 has a number of section detailing its use in politics, in religion, and other areas with the 'In other fields' section detailing that Four sounds like the word Death in a few cultures. The article 0 talks a bit about slang words for 0 with the article Names for the number 0 in English having a section for slang. Again, there are more examples of this.
The only article I found that had the slang for the number as an independent article was 187 (slang), which devotes most of its space to the California Penal Code. Only the lede there refers to the slang at all in a few brief sentences, causing it to appear to fail WP:NOTDICT. Given that there does seem to be more credibility to 86 being a slang term, I feel that it could be merge to 86 (number) without problems and would be the best solution, but it does fail as a stand-alone article as all the article is about is how the word is used as slang so a delete is recommended over a keep. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. Merge to 86 (number) or Delete. Put the content under Cultural significance of 86 (number). Kolma8 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuation to the above - Amending the above, I feel that it is best to summarize the current state of the article. The lede currently has four sentences with each of them referring to just the definition of the word and when it was introduced. The first section is the 'Etymology and meanings' section which list the definition as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Cassell's Dictionary of Slang. Towards the end, the section covers when the term was likely introduced and gives possible origins to the term. The second section is the 'Notable uses' section, which covers the use of the term in songs, movies, and novels for the first half of the section and its use in politics for the second. The remaining sections are the 'See also' and 'References' sections. This leads me to believe that WP:NOTDICT applies as there is nothing in the article except the definition of the word and when it was used. As stated above, a merge is recommended over a delete, but there is not enough to the article to allow it to be a stand-alone article. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In the news due to Donald Trump and Gretchen Whitmer, the reliable sources pointing towards notability be a-flying. Try THIS for size... ("What Does ‘86 45’ Mean? Trump Campaign Claims Whitmer Is ‘Encouraging Assassination Attempts’') Meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
THIS piece by Snopes from March 2009 is also compelling. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly a notable slang term, article is far more than just a dictionary definition. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term is common in the US. It's NOT not notable. Lighthead þ 02:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As far as I can tell, based on sources and others' comments, the slang term is notable enough to have its own article. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If only for the reason that deleting an article immediately after it gets politically highlighted brings wikipedia into disrepute. The issue can be revisited after a few months if necessary. Asgrrr (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. of widespread cultural significance in a variety of contexts; needs discussion, not a dictionary entry. . Its use in the current political conflict, if it was indeed actually used with the implied meaning is unfortunate, , but to remove a word because of that reason is downright censorship--censorship that has the effect that censorship usually does have have--trying to censor something even when it is used wrongly will always have detrimental results on the freedom of information. We will be blamed here no matter what we do, so the safe course--which is also the ethical course--is to stick to our principles. generally. Even if you do not agree with me about the extent of the implications of withdrawing the article, It will be easier to defend keeping to our foundational values when dealing with content of this sort, than to depart from them for political reasons. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep., of course. Whatever the original merits of the NOTDICT objection, the term now has a history in multiple RS that is appropriate to Wikipedia rather than Wictionary. Andyvphil (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV - I suppose, ironically, this was nominated for deletion precisely because it's in the news. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what everybody is going to suppose, whether true or not. That's why it's a terrible idea to nominate an article for deletion under such circumstances.Asgrrr (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brennah Black

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ENT, and WP:NACTOR. There is lots of coverage in Inquisitr, and virtually nowhere else, which leads me to believe that Inquisitr is a paid-for spam website. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I unconditionally support the deletion, but think there's something else that needs looking into here. ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Essentially a promotional piece without obvious assertion of notability. Fails WP:GNG: not the subject of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Fails all of WP:BIO: not widely cited by her peers for any notable achievement; hasn't originated any notable concept; has not produced a substantial body of creative work; not part of any exhibition or winner of significant critical attention. On which basis, not something that should be retained as an encyclopedia page -- Euryalus (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked for, but failed to find, significant coverage in reliable independent sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_October_19&oldid=986077529"