Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 06	November 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Pedro Carvalho (fighter)[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:MMABIO notability guidelines ~~at the moment for he has only one fight under the top tier promoter where~~ subject needs to have at least 3 fights under top tier promotor to meet the criteria . Subject also fails GNG as the fight results are merely routine coverage. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete He has no top tier MMA fights so he fails WP:NMMA. @Cassiopeia:, which of his fights do you believe are top tier? The closest reference that isn't obviously routine sports reporting is an interview with him about his upcoming Bellator title fight and even that doesn't bring him closer to meeting WP:GNG. Win or lose the Bellator fight won't add to his WP notability status. At best, right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Papaursa My mistake. Not sure what did I see when I type the text above. Correct. The subject has NO tier one promotion fight. Thank you for checking. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was merge to The X Factor (British series 14)#Finalists. czar 04:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Sean + Conor Price[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, could be a redirect to The X Factor (British series 14)#Finalists, as that is their only significant performance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Merge and redirect (to article on relevant X-Factor season). Per nom, the subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO (no chart placements, no wins or nominations in major music awards, no wins or placements in major music competitions, no significant or verifiable radio play, etc). In terms of WP:SIGCOV, all of the material coverage seems to relate to the subject's involvement in the X-Factor. For example, as an Irish act, a search of the newspapers of record in Ireland returns mainly trivial passing mentions. Or stories covering the subject's involvement in the X-Factor. For example, of the 6 results in a search of the Irish Times, 5 of these results are substantively about other topics (with passing mentions of the subject). And the 6th is about the subject's involvement in the X-Factor. A similar search of the Irish Independent stable of newspapers is harder to pick through, being mainly false positives. While we do find some news stories (of which the subject is the main topic), these are mainly local stories in local papers. Like these: "Price Brothers to headline the Academy" (Bray People), "Prices' latest single is 'Magic'" (Wicklow People), "Sean and Conor get ready to hit the road in 2019" (Bray People). That most (bordering on all) of the article deals with the subject's involvement in the X-Factor would seem to support WP:MERGEREASON. I don't think deletion is the answer. But a merge would seem appropriate, Guliolopez (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment. The article's creator (Intoxicated Goose) has seemingly added comments to the Talk Page for this AfD discussion. In which a merge is mentioned. That user should try and engage here. As those comments will be "lost" where they are.... Guliolopez (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Merge and redirect per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Hi there!

Intoxicated Goose here, the creator of the article on Sean and Conor Price.

I agree and understand the reasons as to why this article isn't suitable for Wikipedia.

I have spent time and effort into the page, but have decided that the most optimal route for the article is to be a merge.

As I'm new here, could you possibly walk me through the whole process of going through a merge?

Thanks,

Intoxicated Goose. 22:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC).[]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

2019–20 USM Blida season[edit]

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

Due to the third tier of Algerian football being amateur (it's literally called Ligue Nationale du Football Amateur), this does not meet the criteria of WP:NSEASONS. This also fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 22:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 13:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 16:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete. Per nom. does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Watcharapong Janngam[edit]

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

According to the article, has only played in the 4th tier of Thai football so fails WP:NFOOTY. During a quick search, I could not find anything to suggest that he would pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 21:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment: has some in-depth coverage.[1][2] --Paul_012 (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 13:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per the above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom Withdrawal Per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Phanuel Egejuru[edit]

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

Subject of article falls short of the required SNG's to qualify for a biographical article, she is an author but doesn’t fulfill any criterion from WP:NAUTHOR, she has written appropriately three books in all & I can’t see any of her books been critically reviewed, all I’m able to find are cites that sell the book. She is also a professor yet again doesn’t satisfy any of the 8 criterions from WP:PROF. A before search shows she doesn’t possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her, to in the very least satisfy WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep. I found ten published reviews of four books by the subject, now in the article. (One of the four books is self-published but that's irrelevant: it's the reviews, not the publication itself, that count towards notability.) I think it's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment — @David Eppstein, please could you provide the links to those sources that you claim you saw reviewed her books? It’s always helpful to add links in an AFD for ease of access, I would really appreciate to see those sources & confirm if or not they are even reliable sources to begin with. Celestina007 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

They're in the article. As I clearly just stated above. If you're too lazy to look at the article when commenting on an AfD for it, you shouldn't be commenting. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

You added the shaky sources after I nominated this article for deletion & not prior so please do not comment as though those shaky sources were there before the nom. Furthermore please let us remain civil thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

They're all properly-published reviews in academic journals. Whatever possesses you to use the word "shaky" to describe them? Improvement of an article during an AfD is perfectly appropriate. And if we're going to talk about timing, may I remind you of WP:BEFORE, according to which the nominator should look beyond the article itself for better sources prior to making a nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

David Eppstein, you tried to blatantly lie & act as though the sources were present before nomination, when I called you out on this, you switched gears. These days I’ve seen you cross the civility line multiple times with impunity, right now you have used words such as “Lazy” & statements such “what Possesses you”, & admins are supposed to be a held to a higher standard right? As an Admin, If you can’t present your rationale in an AFD without being condescending or walking the civility line, either you stop commenting at AFD’s or drop the mop either works best for the community. This is the very essence of an AFD, editors arguing out their rationale in a civil manner & reaching a consensus, that you try to belittle the process is a major concern to me & that you don’t understand this is a major problem. Celestina007 (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

I did no such thing. My statement said nothing about them being in the article before the nomination. In fact it said the opposite: my use of the word "now" implies that these sources were not in the article earlier. Your "blatantly lie" is a severe violation of WP:CIVIL and you need to retract it and apologize. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 20:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Lifestyle management[edit]

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

WP:FORK of an existing article: concierge. Also used for the promotion of a handful of companies. 1292simon (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete as an un-needed WP:FORK of concierge. "Lifestyle management" is more of buzz word then an actual concept anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

2015 Ubon UMT United F.C. season[edit]

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

Complete failure of every applicable guideline; we absolutely do not need an individual season article for a club playing three tiers below the professional level in the Thai pyramid; no evidence to suggest that this passes WP:GNG. Spiderone 20:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 13:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 16:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure and lacking of sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Narongsil Chotweang[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet our notability guidelines; no professional appearances so fails WP:NFOOTY; also does not appear to have achieved the notability or significance required to pass WP:GNG. All that seems to come up is Transfermarkt and a load of inacessible/dead links when searching his name. Spiderone 20:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 13:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per the above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

2017 Yishun Sentek Mariners FC season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, which are the only applicable guidelines here Spiderone 20:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 13:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 16:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per the above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete fails to meet the criteria as per the nom Shahoodu (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

2019−20 FC Strumska Slava Radomir season[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS; no reason why this warrants a stand-alone article Spiderone 20:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 13:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 16:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per failure of WP:NSEASONS and lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note to closer if this is deleted, Category:FC Strumska Slava Radomir seasons will need to be deleted as well per WP:C1. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete fail NSEASON reference lack significant coverage about the topic, Lynndonald (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was mixed result. Camberwell Road and Riversdale road are delete while Camberwell Junction has a keep consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Camberwell Road, Melbourne[edit]

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

Article doesn't show notability and I couldn't find anything else after a Google search to prove that it warrants its own article. Suonii180 (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Adding[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - zero evidence of notability; how on earth this has lasted 13 years, I will never know Spiderone 19:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete What utter junk. What Spiderone said. Spiderone and Suonii180 I have added Riversdale Road, Melbourne by the same author to this as a nearby road and junction with similar lack of notability. Reywas92^Talk 00:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep Camberwell Junction - it's a listed place on the Victorian Heritage Register and there are sources about it, so the Google search the nominator apparently did wasn't particularly good (I found this with less than a minute of searching for it), e.g. here. Reywas92, calling something "utter junk" is not helpful, just say something is notable or not instead of name-calling. Deus et lex (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

I tend to agree with this keep although it means rewriting this as a completely different article about a historic district (which incidentally is not in Melbourne). As it stands there's no claim to notability, so it's not terribly surprising that people took that at face value. The others should be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Thanks, but just to correct you, Camberwell Junction is in Melbourne (it's in the suburbs). Deus et lex (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

More precisely, it's in the City of Boroondara, which is (as best I understand it) a subunit of Melbourne. Mangoe (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep Camberwell Junction There's a notable subject there with a poorly developed article, see [3]. The other two roads are unsourced and non-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 00:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was redirect to Universal House of Justice. MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Payman Mohajer[edit]

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

WP:FAILN Serv181920 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

delete or redirect to Universal House of Justice. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was merge to Japanese dialects. There is consensus that this topic shouldn't exist as a standalone article, but there is less strong consensus about what to do with the verifiable information that exists. For now, the solution with the most agreement is to merge. ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 19:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Ryukyuan Japanese[edit]

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

Yet another only-in-Wikipedia artifact by Haimounten (talk · contribs) (aka Coastaline (talk · contribs)).

As of November 7, 2010, this article contains 5 external sources. They might fool you. But none of the 5 external sources contain the putative term "Ryukyuan Japanese." It is likely to be an invention by Haimounten (talk · contribs).

In this article, "Ryukyuan Japanese" is presented as an umbrella term for Okinawan Japanese (Okinawa-substrate Japanese) and Amami Japanese (Amami-substrate Japanese). However, the last two external sources make no mention of Amami. Okinawan things are often misrepresented as "Ryukyuan", with an implicit assumption that they hold true for Amami, which is almost always false. The third source is not relevant either. The word Amami appears twice, but substrate influence on Japanese is clearly out of the scope of the article. The same is true of the second source. To sum up, only the first source by Mark Anderson is relevant.

Mark Anderson provides no evidence that this alleged high-level group of languages is recognized by its speakers. It is not, of course. The remaining question is whether there exists a scholarly discussion, independently of the speakers' self-knowledge, to be covered by Wikipedia. The answer is no. Linguists have worked on and still work on individual languages with no serious attempt of generalization. In fact, Anderson mentions Amami only in passing. In short, we have no external content for this abstract entity. Nanshu (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Update: Added a link to the snapshot. 07:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Other books mention the concept of a Ryukyuan-substrated Japanese. It's just that the term itself isn't widely used. Why? Because a lot of books actually do mention the concept of it, but they often mislabel it as "Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi". Here's an example of what I mean: in the book "Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Multilingualism", it mentions "Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi" as a Japanese accent influenced by the six Ryukyuan languages (not just Okinawan and Kunigami). Also, in the book 'Japanese Language and Literature (Volume 41)", it mentions "Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi" as a general mix between Japanese and Ryukyuan (again, not just Okinawan).

On the contrary, many other books say Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi is a Japanese variety only spoken in Okinawa and not the entirety of the Ryukyu chain. These are clearly two different concepts that contradict each other. They are just labeled under one term (Okinawan Japanese) due to the tendency to confuse Okinawa with Ryukyu. Therefore, it's better to distinguish them to avoid confusion. To sum up what I'm saying, there are sources claiming it's the Japanese accent of Ryukyu in general whereas others say it's only spoken in Okinawa. Wouldn't it be good to separate these two concepts, given your outspokenness over distinguishing Okinawa from Ryukyu (as seen in our previous discussion)? I can agree with a rename but definitely not a deletion. — Haimounten (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

I'm glad you apparently accept the fact that the article title is pretty weird.
Another important fact to be confirmed. The alleged superordinate concept has nothing to with actual speakers. It's only a matter of scholarly discussion, even if there is. Do you accept this?
Since you didn't object to my argument about the irrelevance of the sources cited, I deleted the irrelevant paragraph. I hope this clarifies the point.
Again, the remaining question is whether there is any substantial scholarly discussion outside of Wikipedia. That's what you need to prove, and you failed even though you supposedly have many books on this topic. You are actually reinforcing my argument. Narratives coming from Okinawa often contain wild speculations that statements that hold true for Okinawa apply to Amami. Such narratives can be covered by an article on Okinawa-substrate Japanese if you really need them. In reality, there is no serious attempt to substantiate the abstract, high-level grouping.
Just to be sure, I don't rule out the possibility that in the future, someone will compare Amami with Okinawa with respect to substrate influence on Japanese. Because they are two distinct groups, it's almost like comparing Japanese and Korean speakers' L2 English, which does not warrant an article covering both Japanese and Korean.

--Nanshu (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

2. Yes, it's a scholarly discussion.

4. I made the article "Ryukyuan Japanese" because on the basis of emphasizing the difference between Okinawa and Ryukyu (which is what you do as well), I created a separate page for the concept of a Ryukyu-substrate Japanese. What I mean is that some books claim Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi is spoken just in Okinawa while others say it's spoken in the entire Ryukyu Islands (proof is the example books I provided). Why would the same term equate to two contradicting concepts? It would just confuse Wikipedia readers.

Additionally, Ryukyu-Japanese substrates can be traced to a common origin. They all arose in the post-Ryukyu era as a result of Japanese linguistic assimilation. They formed out of substrate mixing between Japanese and the Lewchewan languages. While different types of Ryukyu-substrate Japanese are divergent to an extent, the article explains a group of dialects with similar origins. I'd compare it to how Japanese Pidgin English covers three distinct pidgins on the common origin of mixing between English and Japanese. — Haimounten (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Merge to Japanese dialects. The topic in itself is notable, but there is not yet sufficient coverage in a wider array of sources. Furthermore, the presentation here as a "clade" or distinct dialect group is spurious. The main source for this article (Anderson 2019) does not treat Ryukyuan-influenced variants of Japanese as a single unit. I suggest to merge this information to Japanese dialects, in a section of its own that discusses Ryukyuan-influenced Japanese based on Anderson (2019). –Austronesier (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Thank you for the comment. But I don't see why you think the topic is notable. I'm afraid the word "topic" is taken in so broad a meaning that it can mislead the AfD discussion. Given that we already have Amami Japanese and Okinawan Japanese (the article titles are questionable but that's off-topic), the sole purpose of this article is to misrepresent the spurious superordinate category as an established one. That's not notable.

As you correctly pointed out, this is not a cladistically valid grouping because its two members are parallel developments. Anderson didn't propose such a bogus clade and no other did. This article will never have "a wider array of sources". This stub will never grow because we have no external sources that support the alleged grouping. We have nothing to rescue from this stub. Just deleting this article is a straightforward solution. --Nanshu (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

At least the mention of Anderson (2019) should be salvaged into Japanese dialects. If Ryukyuan Japanese becomes a redirect to let's say Japanese dialect#Variants of Japanese on the Ryukyu Islands (the section does not exist yet), the currently misleading title will be understood as a broad topic, not a well-defined topic. Just like American German (which does not exist as a single entitiy) redirects to German language in the United States. –Austronesier (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

You agree with me that this article cannot be kept as a separate article, and our focus has already shifted to future planning. Admins, allow us to continue the discussion.

I do oppose a new section titled "Variants of Japanese on the Ryukyu Islands". It's like saying "there are flying mammals." when you see bats. This statement is logically not false but pragmatically unacceptable. Take a look at the references section of Andersen (2019). It's clear that Andersen is an outlier. Linguists getting involved in the topic of substrate influence work on individual languages people recognize ("bats"), without the need for superordinate group identification ("flying mammals"). Why do we have to downplay these basic-level categories and to prefer an abstract entity that we don't really need. --Nanshu (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

FWIW, we do have Flying mammals as redirect and Aquatic mammal as a broad topic page. –Austronesier (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[]

To be clear, I see merge as an acceptable compromise. And I admit we are looking too far ahead. Currently, the article Japanese dialects does not even have a section on what Shinji Sanada refers to as neo-dialects, or dialects used by younger generations that exhibit strong influence from Standard Japanese. We should begin by creating the broadest topic of this kind.

That said, we will put Amami and Okinawa in the article Japanese dialect sometime in the future. How should we arrange them, in a flat structure or with an intermediate topic? That's the question, isn't it?

--Nanshu (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Yes, I agree that a new section on "neo-dialects" (the third para in Japanese dialects#History already is an embryonic version of it) would encompass more than just neo-dialects on a Ryukyu substrate, and also that the latter to not form a distinct entity of neo-dialects except for the geographic marker. And the geographic marker alone does require a subsection of its own. –Austronesier (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[]

I'm not sure if you missed my previous reply but I can state it again. You keep claiming it's not notable because of the lack of scholarly coverage. That's actually not true. There are many books talking about a Ryukyu-substrate on Japanese. The problem is that they often mislabel it as "Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi". I already gave you examples of books referring to Okinawan Japanese as a Japanese variety spoken throughout the Ryukyu Islands (which contradicts other books that say Okinawan Japanese is only spoken in Okinawa). These are two distinct concepts mislabeled as a single one, so I separated them on the basis of distinguishing Ryukyu from Okinawa. Furthermore, Ryukyuan Japanese varieties do have a common origin. They developed during the Meiji era as a result of linguistic assimilation. — Haimounten (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

It's a pity you don't understand the situation. I deleted the invalid taxonomy, per the discussion above. To keep this article, you have an obligation to prove the existence of substantial contents outside of Wikipedia. The burden of proof is on you. Good luck. --Nanshu (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Alright, I added sources. Do note that they don't explicitly call it "Ryukyuan Japanese", but they do mention the concept of it. Many books often call a general Ryukyu-substrate as "Okinawan Japanese", even though others call it a substrate that only exists in mainland Okinawa. As I keep saying, on the basis of distinguishing these two distinct ideas, I created this article. Yet, you kind of just ignored by paragraph there. — Haimounten (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - call it original research or synthesis, it's not who we are. The references have nothing to do with the supposed dialect. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

They actually do talk about the supposed dialect. It's just mislabeled under "Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi" as if it's spoken across all of the Ryukyu Islands. This contrasts to some other books which claim it's only the variety spoken in Okinawa. These are two different concepts and I created a separate article to avoid confusion. Is Okinawan Japanese spoken throughout the Ryukyu Islands or just in Okinawa? That's the question people should be asking themselves. — Haimounten (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Merge to Japanese dialects as suggested by Austronesier, or move to Ryukyu-substrate Japanese. The subject AFAICT only exists as an umbrella term used by Anderson, "Ryukyu-substrate Japanese", as stated explicitly here, another chapter by Anderson in the same anthology which discusses the varieties more directly. The term "Ryukyuan Japanese" seems complete OR. With Anderson being the only descriptive source on the varieties themselves, I lean more towards merge than move. Nardog (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

My bad. I named the article "Ryukyuan Japanese" in parallel to "Okinawan Japanese" and "Amami Japanese", though it's not a used scholarly term, so I can agree with a move.

I added sources to the article that mention a general Ryukyu substrate, though they all call it "Okinawan Japanese". This contrasts with other books that say Okinawan Japanese is only spoken in Okinawa. I mainly made this article to distinguish the two concepts. — Haimounten (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

My new position on this is to simply move the article title to Ryukyu-substrate Japanese, as it's used in Mark Anderson's description of it. I agree that Ryukyuan Japanese is OR, though I initially did it in parallel with Amami Japanese and Okinawan Japanese. That is my fault. — Haimounten (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Just another update, the 7th source in this Wikipedia article mentions the following: "As a consequence, today a continuum exists between basilectal and acrolectal Ryukyuan varieties of Japanese known as Uchina Yamatoguchi". This is a perfect example of what I mean. The concept of Ryukyuan Japanese is talked about, but they refer to it as "Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi" for some odd reason. Basically, the thing this article talks about actually exists, but the naming is confused. — Haimounten (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Glad to see a clear consensus that this article cannot be kept as an independent article. I admire Haimounten's tireless effort to twist arguments. The fact that he/she needs aggressive reinterpretation of external sources demonstrates that no one has seriously imagined this abstract entity. This stub will never grow because we don't have substantial contents outside of Wikipedia. --Nanshu (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Well then, can I ask you what “Uchinaa-Yamatoguchi” refers to? Is it a Japanese substrate language spoken in Okinawa or the entire Ryukyu Islands? Is there any real reason to put two distinct concepts under the same title? Don’t they seem to contradict each other? Your argument was based on the idea that this has no topic notability, yet I provided articles that explained the concept. It’s just the naming that’s divergent. — Haimounten (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | [prattle] || 19:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Hilton London Syon Park[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

merge to Syon Park, which does not yet mention it. I see no independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete due to clearly not meeting the notability guidelines. I don't think a merge is needed in this case. Since the sourcing is bad and almost non-existent. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Allegro Papagayo[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete due to being a run of the mill hotel that has nothing notable about it. Sourcing wise or any other respect. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - aside from the sewage incident, there seems to be no coverage or interest in this resort Spiderone 08:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per the above. Lacks to depth of coverage required by WP:GNG and fails WP:NBUILD. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was merge to Disneyland Resort#Hotels. ‑Scottywong | [prattle] || 19:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Disney's Paradise Pier Hotel[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment I haven't looked into whether or not there are better sources than what is currently in article, but it seems at the very least it would be more appropriate to Merge this into Disneyland Resort#Hotels, where it is already covered, than outright deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Merge to Disneyland Resort#Hotels since it's already mentioned there and the sourcing seems to be there to justify it, but not to have a separate article IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Merge I agree with the other two votes to merge this page with Disneyland Resort#Hotels.10Sany1? (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Merge into Disneyland Resort#Hotels - I think we have a clear consensus here. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete a non-notable run-of-the-mill hotel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | [express] || 19:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

The Grand Lodge Hotel[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Strong Keep -- this is the most prominent structure in the city of Forest Grove, Oregon. Not run-of-the-mill. --truflip99 (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Have you got a source for that? Spiderone 21:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep per GNG. Oregonian here, this property is very well known. A search for "Grand Lodge"+"Forest Grove" at Google News yields over 300 returns. I'm not suggesting most are significant coverage or even usable, but I'd like to think there's enough to stitch together a Wikipedia entry. I see mentions of renovations, expansion, COVID-related updates, event hosting, list inclusions, etc. Historic property now operated by McMenamins. I don't have time to flesh out the article at the moment, but I definitely think the article could be expanded to clearly demonstrate notability. Also, someone should search the Oregonian archives via Multnomah County Library -- surely there's more coverage there of the site's history. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | [comment] || 19:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Leonardo City Tower Hotel[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep. Not a run of the mill hotel at all. Received and receives lots of media coverage. Our writeup is mechanical and this caused the wrong impression. Read the Hebrew entry instead and, of course, Google News in Hebrew! gidonb (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep. Significant building, one of the largest (and it used to be the largest) in the metro area. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | [squeal] || 19:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Renaissance Kota Bharu Hotel[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - per nom - the whole complex, including the mall, might be notable, but not this ordinary hotel. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per the above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per Bearian Spiderone 09:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | [speak] || 19:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Columbus Hotel Monaco[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete a non-notable run-of-the-mill hotel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per the above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - lack of quality sourcing to evidence that this hotel is any more notable than any other 3 star hotel in a country where they are a dime a dozen Spiderone 11:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 19:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Copenhagen Marriott Hotel[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

delete i cannot find any in-depth reputable coverage. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep Was Marriott International's first ever hotel in Scandinavia and is Denmarks largest five-star hotel. Has also been noted for being a meeting place for the Bilderberg Group. GWA88 (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete WP:Run-of-the-mill; being a meeting place for the Bilderberg Group does not bestow automatic notability onto the hotel.TH1980 (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Hilton Budapest City[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete a non-notable run-of-the-mill hotel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Folks, let's be honest with ourselves. Hilton Hotels were never so notable that its individually franchised properties are automatically notable. Most people today only know the brand because of a sex tape. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 19:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Odessa Hotel[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete we need an end to all articles on businesses sourced only to that businesses website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. Lacks the significant coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Weak delete - does get some coverage in Ukrainian and Russian media due to being abandoned since 2011 [4] [5] [6] but I'm not convinced it's enough for GNG Spiderone 10:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was redirect to WNCT-TV (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 05:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[]

WGWB[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Redirected to WNCT-TV#WNCT-DT2 as both a plausible/WP:CHEAP redirect and a common result of former WB 100+ cable affiliates which moved to over-the-air with The CW's launch. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 22:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was redirect to Christian Olde Wolbers. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Burn it All[edit]

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 25, original concern was lack of notability. Procedural nomination, I'm neutral. T. Canens (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. T. Canens (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment - Well, it had members of notable bands. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - Technically, this does seem to roughly pass WP:BAND#6 as it was made up of 3 separately notable members - but there just doesn't seem to be anything worth saying. The band never released anything that I can find, and I can find no coverage of them touring or otherwise generally being a band. I see no purpose in an article if we can't provide sourced information beyond what is basically "they announced they existed in 2008". ~ mazca ^talk 13:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep or redirect - Ensemble has 3 notable band members, and can be redirected to Christian Olde Wolbers or another band member if the article can not be kept. It is standard practice for a band name to redirect to a notable band member. Someone once said that one should either point the term to the most prominent band member, or that if all members are equal, to flip a coin to decide to which band member the term should point. Unlike the other two band members, Olde Wolbers has a properly sourced paragraph dedicated to Burn it All with links to the other two band members. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete, the band has produced nothing. I can't find any release whatsoever on Metal-Archives or Discogs. Geschichte (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Christian Olde Wolbers. Everything we can say about the band is already there. no need for a one sentence stub. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Redirect to Christian Olde Wolbers as already covered there, no sign of independent notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Agreen Dilshad[edit]

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

no indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Google searches not finding any WP:significant coverage. noq (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete Effectively unsourced, fails to establish any degree of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete lacks the depth of coverage needed to satisfy WP:BASIC, WP:NMUSICIAN, and WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | [soliloquize] || 20:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Shopping Palace[edit]

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

non notable shopping centre. Nothing to distinguish it from thousands of others. noq (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete I linked it's Wikidata page. Which seems to have articles on it in other languages. None of which are referenced. I couldn't find anything that would pass WP:GNG in a search for it either. So, is a clear delete in my book. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Juan Wagenpfeil[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (has represented Italy Sevens, but not at the level required to qualify him for WP:NRU), no sources indicate he qualifies for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - the coverage is entirely WP:MILL [7] [8] Spiderone 22:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Francesco Bonavolontà[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (has represented Italy Sevens, but not at the level required to qualify him for WP:NRU), no sources indicate he qualifies for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - best source is this [9] which is painfully brief Spiderone 20:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Gianmarco Vian[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (has represented Italy Sevens, but not at the level required to qualify him for WP:NRU), no sources indicate he passes WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - sources exist but it's all trivial mentions like these [10] [11] [12]. Nothing we can build a biography from Spiderone 22:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Mattia D'Anna[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (has represented Italy Sevens, but not at the level required to qualify for WP:NRU), no sources indicate he qualifies for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. There is clear consensus at this time that this article fails the WP:LISTN notability guidelines. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

List of tallest buildings in Thunder Bay[edit]

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

The fact that 30m is the bar set for 'tall' here says it all really. I know that there is no definite line drawn as to when "List of tallest buildings in ___" become notable or not notable. I would say, however, that wherever we draw that line, this article must fall short of those standards. It fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraperpage and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Thunder Bay' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The whole article is currently a violation of WP:NOTMIRROR as it is almost entirely a copy and paste from Skyscraperpage.
The city is not the largest in Ontario nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building being taller than 30m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Vancouver and Montreal so why are we doing it here?

Similar AfDs for reference: Bradenton and Macon Spiderone 12:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment - was previously up for AfD as part of a massive grouping and kept Spiderone 12:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

delete Yet another place where nothing is notably tall. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete, these buildings are not characterized by being tall, as they are not in fact tall. Geschichte (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete: Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings on the list are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, it does not assist in navigation, and does not serve any purpose under WP:AOAL. // Timothy :: talk 14:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per above, and as failing my own standards for tall buildings. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus was reached in this discussion. @Twotwice: thanks for helping with the AfD process, but discussions should not generally be relisted more than twice. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Dravida Vizhipunarchi Kazhagam[edit]

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

No indication of notability or ever having held a seat in any government. Unsourced since birth and I wasn't able to find any sources on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete. Well, it does indeed exist ([13], [14]), but I agree with nom that there's nothing suggesting GNG or NORG here. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep - notable, [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] examples of in-depth coverage on the party. Its role as BJP ally also mentioned here [20]. Alternative spelling in English here [21]. Notably, seems its the same party as Desiya Forward Bloc (see http://rajpatrahimachal.nic.in/OPENFILE1.aspx?etype=SPECIAL&ID=165/GAZETTE/2013-10/31/2013 ), the two articles should probably be merged. --Soman (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment I've made edits to the article with some sources now. I'm not sure if the sources give enough coverage to be considered significant, but they seem to meet the other criteria outlined at WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Two, twice^talk 13:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after contributions were made to improve the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Two, twice^talk 22:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Rational Asset Manager[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Jcarlosmartins (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

~~Delete~~ - I could not find any Wikipedia acceptable source. It seems like this is a non-notable article. Jcarlosmartins (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Jcarlosmartins You cannot vote twice in an AFD, your nom is your vote. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Struck double !vote. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The links are nine pages form the developer's website and a blog. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete it's an IBM (subsidiary) product that exists and that IBM talks about, but there's no substantial independent coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete as it currently lacks the depth of coverage required by WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was speedy withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Verge (cryptocurrency)[edit]

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

notability not established, sources are not researching, the Mashable source mentioned in the previous AfD is sourcing Bitcointalk and Twitter, this cannot be considered reliable journalism. Also, there is no guideline saying that if a coin gets hacked twice and it gets covered, Wikipedia must include the article. There are tens of coins like this one. I am tempted to mention how the value of the coin has collapsed and almost no development is happening, but that is not how notability is established. Simply by applying the guidelines for reputable sources that we have, this article has no ground to stand on. The previous AfD asserted notability because of an article in The Register. The article is sourced from forum posts and does not contain independent research. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep. Nothing has changed since the last nomination. The Register article being sourced from forum posts has no bearing on the reliability of the article. That's literally what a secondary source does. They synthesize information from primary sources, evaluate them for reliability, and put out a news article. For example, the forum posts do not establish notability, but when a journalist takes those forum posts to analyze and comment on them that does create notability. The journalist looks at the numerous forum posts about cryptocurrencies being shitty or vulnerable or hacked and then writes articles about the posts or tweets that are actually important.

Also, again, the notability of this cryptocurrency isn't affected by time. The fact the coin is now worthless and is no longer under active development does not make it non-notable. This was mentioned in the first AfD and it's necessary to mention that again. While the nominator has qualified their statement w/r/t this by saying Verge's lack of development "is not how notability is established" it's still pretty clear that they're bringing it up as a reason to get the article deleted. Otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 01:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete, not sure about the logic of looking for exceptions to guidelines, that's exactly how they are not meant to work, they're not guidelines if people say x and y don't apply. Either way this is not the forum for this discussion. Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Katerina Bexis[edit]

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

PROD (by Geschichte) was Footballer who has never played in a professional league. No international caps according to Soccerway.com

Removed with reason According to its article, this is the top-level national league. By insisting that it is not "professional", you are making the sexist argument that women can never be notable in this sport.

I could not find any effective references for Bexis. The best ones I found were [22] and [23]. I am unable to find evidence that suggests she could pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 10:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete as per nom - fails WP:GNG and NFOOTBALL Shahoodu (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment: At some point in time, we need to revisit to see if W-League_(Australia) is an exception to NFootball. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Then there would be a large number of exceptions, at least Norway, Sweden and Germany, maybe France, Spain, Italy... Geschichte (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Salarpuria Sattva[edit]

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

No indepth coverage in multiple RS and thus fails GNG, NCOMPANY. Google search only reveals soures that are annoucements about their projects. Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Faizal batliwala (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. Most references are entirely based on company announcements, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. I also note that although the article is named after the founder, the article title does not accurately reflect the name of the company. In my opinion, this is a spammy way for an individual to get an "article" about themselves on Wikipedia. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Dalit Dastak[edit]

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

Zero evidence of notability. Fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

delete I could not find any independant third party significant coverage, thus the subject fails WP:GNG. In the wikipedia article, the titles of the sources in ref templates have been altered, and irrelevant sources/articles have beed added as refs. High possibilities of COI. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ҥ (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Apse (band)[edit]

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

Notability tagged since 2009, so time to get a hearing on this. One-paragraph AllMusic bio. There's some coverage in Prog Archives, but it's listed as unreliable at WP:ALBUMAVOID. Sources in the article are primary, unreliable, or insignificant coverage. Mostly just an interview here. This is from BBC, but is marked as a Wikipedia mirror. Sputnik gives one sentence. The material here is copied from the lead of this article. Found a few things that look bloggish. Don't think this quite meets WP:NBAND (one release on an indie label with an article, others either self-released or on really minor indie labels), and I'm not sure that WP:GNG is met, either. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment - Likely COI, as created by User:Apse. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per nom. Comment @Hog Farm: If the article was created by a user whose name matches the band's, then it is not "likely" COI, it IS COI. Just saying. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep the AllMusic bio has a large number of facts that sources much of the article and there is also a staff written album review here Will look for more sources tomorrow, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC) The undertheradar magazine piece is partially a review of an album but be careful at that site as it has malware, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Update found extra reliable sources coverage at Pitchfork here, Clash here, more Clash coverage indexed here,Exclaim here, PopMatters here,More reviews linked at Metacritic here, and More reviews linked at Metacritic for a different album here. All together there is enough coverage for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep per Atlantic's work. Caro7200 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep per sources found by Atlantic. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Adventure Quest (LARP)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]

KEEP: I have added a second secondary source, and removed the primary sources. The two RS secondary sources now establish notability. Guinness323 (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment: I have added a third secondary source as well. Guinness323 (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep based on additional sources that were added per WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete This appears to be an organization, or a information product; so applying WP:NCORP, or WP:NPRODUCT, notability threshold is not met, because multiple, widely circulated WP:SIRS is not satisfied. Graywalls (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Weak keep sources suffer a bit from being fairly local, but appear otherwise to meet the requirements of the GNG (and local in this case is covering a few million people). Hobit (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment - At the very least, shouldn't this article be renamed? Based on all three of the sources added, and even the information currently in the article, the actual organization is called "Renaissance Adventures", with "Adventure Quest" just being one of the types of activities they run. Rorshacma (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete Not a single source meets the criteria for establishing notability. We require detailed coverage of *the company* as per WP:CORPDEPTH and not just a review of the experience of LARPing. We also require "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND and not articles based on interviews/quotations from company execs. Of the references added, this from Denver Parent is from a parent praising the existence of a nearby camp and the fact her family loves it. It contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH but the giveaway is that it is tagged as "PR Sample". Fails WP:ORGIND. This reference from Boulder Weekly is entirely based on a interview with the founder/CEO, fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, this from Denver Post is churnalism and based on information provided by the company and an interview with a company exec, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete. Not seeing any significant coverage or reviews. At best, this can be redirect to some List of LARPs or such where it can be briefly mentioned. PS. Also, the article is a WP:TNTable mess - mixes an organization, a product, a holiday camp... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[]
- Erb? Did you read the sources? They are very much significant coverage in the form of reviews. Hobit (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment This article is not about the company but about the product produced, specifically a specific role-playing LARP. Whether or not the company is notable, the LARP is, according to the sources cited. All the talk about the corporation is a complete misdirect.Guinness323 (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[]

If the article is specifically limited to the one product, and not the company as a whole, then it is a definite failure of the WP:GNG. Of the three sources that were added since the AFD started, one does not even mention the "Adventure Quest" product, and another only has a couple sentences. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - Taking the article as it currently exists - limited to the single product produced by the company, it is a complete failure of the WP:GNG - as I also mentioned in my comment above, one of the added sources does not mention "Adventure Quest" at all (and that article, as pointed out by HighKing, is labeled as a PR piece), and one only has brief coverage. That leaves only one piece of in-depth coverage, which does not demonstrate notability. As suggested by Piotrus, if there is a broader list or article that someone can suggest for this to be merged or redirected to, I would be on board, but this does not meet the criteria of sustaining an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete does not pass the WP:GNG due to the sources not being of sufficient quality or detail, per User:Rorshacma. Also not opposed to a redirect. Jontesta (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete all the coverage is local and vaguely promotional, I agree with Rorshacma's description of the sourcing. There are many, many, many summer camps for children discussed in local newspapers as local activities (public interest-like coverage), this level of local coverage doesn't make them notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was redirect to 7th Chess Olympiad. Assertion of sources is not the same as providing sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Arthur Baert[edit]

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

I can't find any indepth sources about him, only chess databases like the ones already in the article. Fails WP:BIO. (Note; every country can send a team to the Chess Olympiad, no matter the level of the participants. Competing at the Chess Olympiad thus doesn't indicate that one is an international top player). Fram (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep In my opinion, participants at the Chess Olympiad are all relevant. They are always the best players of a country and therefore have enough notability. Steak (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[]
- Not if chess gets little to no attention in their country at that time. Being one of the best in something which doesn't interest the public (or the media) means that you aren't notable, no matter how good you are. Notability isn't decided by "they should be notable", but by actual sources. Fram (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Redirect to 7th Chess Olympiad, the only one he competed in and where he is listed as a participant. There isn't enough coverage to justify a standalone article. P-K3 (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep According to Cornil's Championnats de Belgique d'Echecs (1901-2009), he competed in six Belgian championships from 1935 to 1959, tying for 2nd in 1949 and never finishing lower than a tie for 5th, and winning the tournament prize for most brilliant game in 1935 (as judged by world champion Max Euwe) while tying for fourth with Alberic O'Kelly, future grandmaster and correspondence world champion. Verhulst's Belgian Chess History gives 25 events he competed in from 1931 to 1970, citing local newspapers and magazines of the time as sources. Baert was from Antwerp (after the war, he was active in Turnhout – see e.g., [24], p. 10), winning the league championship of that city in 1970 and representing it or Belgium in several intercity/international matches besides the Olympiad mentioned in the current article. He was a doctor by profession. A leading Belgian player for 40 years can be expected to have significant coverage in local secondary sources such as the ones cited by Verhulst. In particular, I'd look to Wasnair and Jadoul's 300-page Histoire des maîtres Belges ([25], [26]), published in 1988, as a likely source of further information on Baert. Belgicapress gives 27 results for 'schaken' + "Dr. Baert" from 1930 to 1970, the last year covered in the database. Cobblet (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep I am persuaded by Cobblet's points. It seems there will be plenty written about him in Belgian journals and other documents. Added to his Olympiad appearance and creditable placings at multiple national championships, this seems fine. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete: participation to a Chess Olympiad is not notable per se, since the level of the participants varies greatly, many from not-so-strong chess playing nations are amateurs, club level players. He may have competed several times in the Belgian national championship, but never managed to win a title, and it's not a strong chess-playing nation. Sophia91 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was redirect to AlphaStar (satellite broadcasting service). Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Champion Telecom Platform[edit]

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

I know that AfD is not cleanup, but I cannot determine what this article is meant to be about. GHits are limited to wikipedia mirrors and this forum. I considered a merge to AlphaStar (satellite broadcasting service), but it's unclear whether that would make sense, or if Alpha is notable. StarM 02:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

It is notable for being an early satellite direct-to-home television platform. Rather than deletion, it should be merged with the AlphaStar_(satellite_broadcasting_service) article. KJRehberg (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

I'm not entirely sure a thirteen month services is notable either, unfortunately. StarM 14:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Redirect to AlphaStar (satellite broadcasting service) where it's mentioned in the "History" section. Content of this article doesn't look like it's worth saving with the absence of sources and it's impossible to tell if the information is correct at all (which means it fails WP:V). AlphaStar at least has a claim of significance. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

St. Regis Museum Tower[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails the following requirement per WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Wikiwriter700 (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Kimpton George Hotel[edit]

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD Wikiwriter700 (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Bhupen Dalal[edit]

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

highly promotional bio, minor notability at best DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

@DGG: The subject is noted within India as one of the country's most well-known businessmen, with a business portfolio including the Bombay Stock Exchange-listed company, Food and Inns Ltd, and the country's current leading IPO publisher, Western Press. There are substantive and substantial primary and secondary sources that support this assertion. The citations within the article support all assertions, but are by no means exhaustive. In addition, Dalal is notable for being implicated in one of India's largest financial scandals, in a case that ran for more than 20 years. The article is no more promotional than that of other prominent Indian businessmen and entrepreneurs upon Wikipedia. As with other articles within the same categories, it details the subject's business career and achievements, as well as controversies. If it is the consensus that the entry is, in its current form, considered promotional rather than strictly informative, then the article can be amended with this guidance in mind rather than deleted outright. Gruntfuttock115 (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep: passes WP:GNG. Any issues with the articles can be addressed by the community in due time. ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep Found significant references that establishing Notability. CleanAmbassy (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete I believe the current interest both in creating the article and a bit of recent news coverage is due to Scam 1992. However not every broker involved in the scam is automatically notable. There is a lot of trivial mentions in the news, but I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Also to note that both the companies he owns/heads are pretty small and not notable on their own. Food and Inns Ltd has a market cap of around 230 crores (~ 33 million USD) and Western Press (a private company) has an paid up capital of just 87 lakhs (~ 120k USD). Being in very niche business and having some notable clients does not make the company notable. The subject fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. The article is also written in very PROMO tone. CleanAmbassy, request you to share links to these significant references. Roller26 (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

This irretrievably promotional article can't remain in the mainspace, and I was unable to identify a NPOV revision to restore.—S Marshall T/C 10:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

As previously stated, I cannot see how the article is any different to that of many other Indian businessmen hosted, without dispute, upon Wikipedia. Neither can I clearly see why it does not confirm with NPOV, given that all information provided is clearly cited and that any commercial claims come from reputable third-party sources rather than the subject. A quick search online will suffice to demonstrate the subject's notability, and his notable connection to one of India's largest financial scandals in modern history. That being said, and again as previously stated, I would welcome constructive guidance on revising the article to be exactly inline with Wikipedia's policies, if the consensus is that it currently fails to do this. Gruntfuttock115 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete I checked the first 10 references, there is only one that is in-depth, the tenth one. There is lots of coverage, mostly related to the fraud, e.g. short paragraph in the Independent, similar one in Reuters. I found a financial analysis he completed for banking customers in Jstor, but there is very little on the man himself, hence the reason the article is stuffed with other types of non-suitable business sources. I don't see much to support WP:BIO, or WP:SIGCOV. The article is a BLP but reads like a business article. It is highly promotional, failing WP:PROMO and non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was merge to David Milgaard#Real killer. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Larry Fisher (murderer)[edit]

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

Convicted murderer. Clearly fails WP:ONEEVENT. Little to no basis for a biography here. Geschichte (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

MERGE with David_Milgaard and rename to "Murder of Gail Miller." As WP:ONEEVENT states, this should not be about a person, but about the event. Expertwikiguy (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Merge to David_Milgaard#Real_killer per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLPCRIME. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Merge with David Milgaard#Real killer. The perpetrator is notable outside of the crime, so per WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E should be merged to the event (or in this case, the article that covers the event but isn't explicitly about the event). I am tempted to agree with Expertwikiguy about the renaming of David Milgaard article, but I expect that that should have its own separate discussion (especially as there does seem to be continuing coverage of Milgaard up to 2020 about his fight for others who have been wrongly convicted - as cited in the article). Samsmachado (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Jean Allison[edit]

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

Allison basically bounced around from one TV show to another, appearing in 1 episode most of the time. This is not what would count as significant roles and so does not lead to notability for an actress John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Weak Keep: The subject appears to be a prolific character actress. Character actors often find themselves in trouble in AfDs, but there does appear to be some coverage of her in books: here and here. I think it's worth looking into this article and digging a bit deeper. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment I've added some things from newspapers.com. Her name is rather common, but you'll get better results by searching for the titles too. Someone might check her list of husbands on IMDb and search for Jean + [Married Name] and Jean Allison + [Husband]. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Paducah Bank[edit]

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

Non-notable bank from Kentucky. I ran a WP:BEFORE search, but all that came up was local coverage, that too all passing mentions rather than any in-depth coverage. Article used to be a huge mine of spam that has since been nuked: see this diff. Java Hurricane 11:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 11:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 11:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 11:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 11:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Murder of Cécile Bloch[edit]

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

Tragic, but not notable. Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Merge Into a new structured article Le Grêlé serial killer, when you realise this is part of a bigger picture, then you will understand how much content there is to put together, there is no need to throw this page under the bus. Please review lepoint article. My French is not the best, but I understand some, so editors might need to use google translate or something, maybe French editors can build a better article. Govvy (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]
Govvy, Just left you a message on my talk page suggesting this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep There's a lot more detail in French wiki, but you can't expect people to take time to translate and expand, based on that and the many available sources, if you will delete it! Be well. Charles01 (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With one delete, one merge and one keep, this could be a "no consensus" but another week of input won't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep per Charles01; needs translating, not deleting. The French language coverage is highly significant Spiderone 15:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep, meets WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG, numerous sources over a number of years cited in the French WP article reveals the wikinotability of this event. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Ted Kavanau[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television news producer, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for television producers. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and must be shown to either earn important distinctions (notable journalism or television awards, etc.) or have enough reliable source coverage about them in media independent of themselves to pass WP:GNG. But of the four footnotes here, one is a primary source "staff" profile on the self-published website of a publishing company he's directly affiliated with and two are glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him (and one of the two namechecks, further, is a personal career reminiscence by a former colleague on the self-published website of their own former employer). There's only one source here that actually starts to get him toward a GNG pass, and one good source isn't enough all by itself. There are also some WP:NPOV issues here, with several loaded value adjectives that praise him and criticize mainstream media in a non-neutral and non-objective way. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep — It's minimally sourced because it's a stub. If you don't like that, expand the article. But the sources are mainstream media, referencing articles or books in which Kavanau is the main subject, or a key player. The upshot of their coverage is that without "Mad Dog", CNN might not exist, certainly wouldn't have been the same. — Kaz (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

"It's a stub" is not in and of itself justification for minimal sourcing: a person does not get to keep a Wikipedia article of any length if he cannot be shown to clear WP:GNG on substantive coverage about him, which means that if he doesn't have more sources than this then he does not even get to have a stub. (And no, happening to have his name mentioned in coverage of other things is not the same thing as "coverage about him", either.) The only source here that carries any weight at all as notability-supporting source about Ted Kavanau is #1, Literary Hub, and one such source is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. He appears from time to time on Internet news, being interviewed because yet another of his colleagues or interviewees has died. There's literally eight Google news articles, zero indexed newspaper articles about him, and passing mentions in magazines and books about Atlanta or CNN. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

delete a blp needs better sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE. Article prose has not changed since the close. Please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you have an issue with the previous close. (non-admin closure) – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Independent Publishing Resource Center[edit]

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

This is a promotional web page for the organization, not an encyclopedia article . The sources are all local, and most of them PR or mere notices like a routine inclusion on a listing of events. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Seriously? Strong keep. We just went over this. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]
Keep the previous AfD was only 5 months ago. It closed as keep and I don't see anything improper in that close. Vexations (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Even the keep argument demonstrates this is not notable Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Muhammad Mokaev[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:MMABIO for a mma fighter needs at least 3 fights under tier one promoter such as UFC or Invicta. Subject has no tier one promotion fights and also fails WP:GNG as the fight info is merely trivial routine reports. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete With only one professional fight, and that was for a minor organization, he's not close to meeting WP:NMMA. His junior amateur championships also don't meet any WP notability criteria. Junior martial artists are generally not considered notable and WP:MMANOT#Fighters starts with the statement "Amateur MMA fighters are not considered notable." The references all seem to be routine sports reporting with emphasis on his junior amateur MMA career. Papaursa (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep Mokaev is one of the most hotly anticipated amateurs to have joined the professional ranks. He is not longer an amateur and is funded by the prince of Bahrain. He now has had 3 professional fights and has won all of them. He has won all of his amateur fights. He wrestles for GB and has a lengthy article on the BBC. The reason why he has this as opposed to other MMA fighters is down his record of unbeaten amateur record and because he highly regarded in MMA circles. He is his 4th professional fight in a few weeks. He is hotly tipped to become a world champion in the professional ranks. Whilst the WP:NMAA criteria have strictly not been met, i feel Mokaev merits a stay of execution on account of his remarkable record, the articles in the media, the people in the Uk circles of MMA know him fairly well and he trains with Professional MMA fighters in the UFC and Bellator (Kane Mousah and Lerone Murphy). He has also trained in Sweden with Chimaev. This week he has been interviewed by CNN, and that too will soon be published.Rassmallai (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

— Rassmallai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Hotly tipped", "hotly anticipated" and "highly regarded" are WP:WEASEL ways of saying he might become notable but isn't yet. Notability is not inherited from people who train with him or sponsor him. Victories in minor organizations do not show notability. Interviews are not considered as meeting WP:GNG. Saying the MMA notability "have strictly not been met" is a gross understatement. Your argument seems to be a case of WP:ILIKEIT when the facts indicate it's definitely WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. But please add the soruces to the article. Geschichte (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Rational Performance Tester[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Jcarlosmartins (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Jcarlosmartins, did you look for sources WP:BEFORE submitting this nomination? Bad sourcing is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON would you like to try another? ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[]

I could not find any Wikipedia acceptable source. It seems like this is a non-notable article. Jcarlosmartins (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

I presented three of those below, before you made this addition...? Looks like you are just going through the motions here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep A rare treat for software articles: there are actual peer-reviewed studies that test and evaluate this package (e.g. [27], [28], [29]). Looks like uncommonly good sourcing exists, it just has to be added to the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep - No valid reson given for deletion and no response from nom. ~Kvng (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Per detailed source analysis Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Doctify[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable startup. scope_creep^Talk 10:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

11 separate independent sources, some with quite substantial coverage. Rathfelder (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep - Google news has over 250 hits, which rather undermines the claim in the nom. Oculi (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

That Gnews search is picking up a whole load of low-quality content like press-release, product announcements, stuff like that, e.g. the first entry is a press-release. We will go though the refs. scope_creep^Talk 19:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

The 2nd one is press-release. A google news search isn't good companies. Biographical articles, certainly, but not companies. scope_creep^Talk 19:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[]

The Evening Standard article is quite detailed. Rathfelder (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[]

It a press-release. scope_creep^Talk 23:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Not a Press Release, but churnalism. It is publicity generated by the company and follows the age-old formula of founders-profile/description-of-problem/aha-moment/struggles-and-sacrifice/success-and-good-vibes/funding/future-outlook and also comes with the obligatory photo (provided by the company). It relies 100% and entirely on information provided by the company and interview/quotations for any "facts". If fails WP:ORGIND because if you remove everything from the article that was provided by a source connected to the company, there's absolutely nothing left and certainly not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Most articles about companies have lots of content "provided by a source connected to the company". Where else would it come from? Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Exactly! So how is someone supposed to know the difference between PR/Promotion and facts. The exact reason you've quoted is why Wikipedia was (and still is) inundated with spammy articles on companies. It is also the reason why WP:NCORP was changed in 2019 to emphasise the quality of references that are required and the guidelines are simple - no spam, no promotion, no announcements, no run-of-the-mill financial statement, no "interviews". No regurgitated company-spawned material. If a company is notable, somebody somewhere will take notice and write about them. If they're not notable, nobody will bother which is about 99.9% of most companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

@Rathfelder: These small private companies (startups) don't by definition, have coverage. Unless they have somebody really well known on their board, they are generally brand new and unknown to market, What they do have is an advertising budget, they must become known. So it is advertising like coverage you get, PR, churnalism, press-release, social media content, to bring attention to landing page, or website. It is ultra shallow information and non-notable. We will go through the references and examine them. scope_creep^Talk 09:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment Reference review,

* Entrepreneurs: Camden start-up Doctify aims to become the go-to online health platform The founders doing an interview, with a smiling face. Fails WP:ORGIND.

* Tech Pitch: Doctify Same picture. Fails WP:ORGIND.

* Same ref. Same picture. Fails WP:ORGIND.

* Doctify.co.uk celebrates two years disrupting the healthcare industry Press-release, from the press-room.

* Dead link, but it a funding announcement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Standard announcements, including funding news.

* Dead link.

* 'Uber for doctors' raises funds Funding news. Oliver Thomas, chief executive of Doctify, tells Sky's Ian King about the appointment app service and its latest fund-raising efforts Standard announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND.

* Own site Self-published content. WP:SPIP.

* Doctify secures series A investment Standard announcement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

They rest of the references are the same. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 09:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Flesh on Fire: Addicted to a Dream[edit]

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

Lack of notability. The sourcs are very weak and I don't think the award is sufficiently prestigious to confer notability. Given the age of the film, there should be better refs if it is truly notable. TheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete. I looked for sourcing and couldn't find anything. It looks like this just flew a little too much under the radar as far as indie movies go. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep I have read a lot about this movie and believe it deserves a page, but can understand that the lack of WP:RS is concerning. Though, I'm not sure how many sources are written about a niche documentary generally. CozyHadar (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[]
Please note that I've blocked the above user as a suspected sock (and/or UPE). GeneralNotability (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete there are not enough independent, reliable citations to support WP:GNG.K67 (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete, sourced to IMDb, a passing mention and a press release, fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete. No evidence whatsoever of notability. Deb (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 02:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Star Saga One: Beyond the Boundary[edit]

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

An IP user created the page with some good sources. It was then redirected back to Star Saga. Bringing here, to assess notability and see if it can be a standalone article page on the first game in the series itself. Right cite (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment: I think there is enough here to meet the GNG for a standalone article. 2601:243:1C80:6740:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep If anything, Star Saga should become a redirect or disambiguation page, as it fails the VG series requirements. This page, however, easily seems to pass GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep Both games get coverage, so can have two separate articles. This one is for the first game, the other can be renamed for the second, it listing information about it and why the sales were so bad they had to sell their company. Dream Focus 22:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep but re-organize: this does seem to cover the same topic as Star Saga, and the two should be combined into one better article. I do see some coverage of the second game in the series article, and that should be re-written as its own spin-out, or as a short section at the end of the article about the first game. There might be two topics here, but not as written. Jontesta (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Ricky Bandejas[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial artist. Subject fails WP:MMABIO as a MMA fighter needs to have at least 3 fights under tier one promotion to pass WP:MMABIO notability requirement which subject fails to secure. Subject also fails GNG as the fight info/record is mainly trivial routine reports. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 02:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete He has no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. Winning a minor MMA title doesn't show WP notability and all of the coverage is either routine sports reporting or MMA databases. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete He fails WP:NMMA. The two criterions for notability of MMA player are (according to WP:NMMA):

1. Have fought at least three professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or

2. Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization

He fails both of the criterions because in his professional career, he has only fought in the CFFC (which isn't listed in the tier list) and the Bellator (in which all his fights were

after 2015, so after Bellator was knocked down to second tier). He has never fought in a top-tier organization. He fails notability. Lazman321 (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Super League XXV regular season table[edit]

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

Apparently, I "completely messed the whole thing up by redirecting it" to the article where it is completely included in. Hmm. No reason for this separate article about the table, when it is included in the main target page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

I don't get why you've requested for this to be deleted. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Plus, why add a redirect on it? There was nothing wrong with it in the first place. Once you added the redirect, I couldn't even open the page to view it.. there's just simply no need for this to be even deleted. I didn't create the page, it was created earlier tonight in order to show the updated WPCT with Salford's deductions.

So, why have you requested for it to be deleted?.. L1amw90 (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep and SNOW close: Absolutely no reason for deletion. If you think you messed up with it technically (why would you even redirect it anyway?), send a message to WP:VPT and they'll be able to see what the problem is. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep It's a template now. WDM10 (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep This is a template that appears to have been mistakenly moved a few hours ago to article space, but it is now back in template space where it belongs. CThomas³ (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep the confusion is partly my fault. The table needed a custom configuration to deal with some circumstances that Module:Sports table can't cope with. Initially I put the table directly into Super League XXV and removed the link to the template page. I was going to delete the template until I realised that it is transcended into several other articles, so I moved the wikitext to this template page. Therefore there may have been a short period when it appeared twice on the Super League page, once as text & once as a transfusion. Bottom line, the template is used in several articles so should stay. Nthep (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Maximum genetic diversity hypothesis[edit]

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

I'm not convinced about the notability of this topic, much of the article appears to be novel synthesis from many primary sources. The primary promoter of this theory appears to be a certain Dr. Shi Huang, and it appears to have gained little traction in mainstream scholarly sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete I took a look at this a few months ago, when PainProf was trying to clean it up. At the time, I didn't see evidence that it had been taken seriously by a substantial community apart from its inventor. Revisiting the topic now, I concur with the nominator that it just hasn't gained enough traction to deserve an article. XOR'easter (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete I agree. It may be an interesting hypothesis, but it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Comment I haven't read through this thoroughly yet but a lot of the article is original research or defending the hypothesis rather than describing it. The scientist's google scholar page also links to this article as his homepage so I think there's some confusion over what Wikipedia is for.Citing (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Delete. Looking deeper into it this hypothesis hasn't gained any traction from secondary sources with most citations being linked to the original author somehow and this article is largely original research. I also have concerns about a conflict of interest as the article is also the homepage link on the scientist's Twitter profile and it looks like it was written to promote the hypothesis (e.g. [30]).Citing (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Terence Yung[edit]

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

Yung apparently had something of a promising career as a young pianist, but his later legal troubles appear to have put an end to that. He is notable neither as a pianist nor as a criminal. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep satisfies WP:SINGER as noted before but also receives SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources so he even passes WP:GNG.LexisNexisWest (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep Plenty of in-depth coverage in newspapers to easily pass WP:GNG. Note, this article was the subject of a prior notability discussion, but per consensus of the community, notability has been established. Onthedeck (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep I concur with the above electing to keep. There is more than enough coverage in the press to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. IMHO notability has been established. Mozartius (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Keep agree with above, enough coverage from RS, WP:GNG is established. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[]

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