Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 24

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 26 (Thu) September 25 (Wed) September 24 (Tue) More...

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

< October 23	October 25 >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Bruno Turner

AfDs for this article:

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

Deletion requested per WP:BIODELETE in VRTS ticket # 2020101710005344 (I haven't verified the identity of the correspondent, but have no reason to doubt that he's the article subject). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete clearly not notable enough to justify an article over the subject's objections to having one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
~~'Delete agree that he is not well enough known to override the subject's request,~~imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Striking my delete vote in view of further information from Chubbles and In ictu oculi, am now neutral, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: undoing my closure—@Chubbles, has additional sources for discussion, per my talk page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 23:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Other than a long career, I don't see that he's listed in any musicology journals, none are used for sources. Seems relatively minor. Oaktree b (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep Sadly, I keep getting here too late for the party, but the !voters are missing things here. He already has an article in The New Grove, which is the most authoritative English-language encyclopedia of art music, and he is frequently covered in the scholarly journal Early Music, both for his recordings as a choral conductor and for his scholarship on historical performance practice. JSTOR has hundreds of listings for his name within musicology journals. He even got his own festschrift, entitled Pure Gold: Golden Age Sacred Music in the Iberian World - A Homage to Bruno Turner. Ed. by Tess Knighton and Bernadette Nelson, reviewed here in Music and Letters and here in Fontes Artis Musicae. Within the field of early music, he is well-known, and the fact that he is already covered in a major music encyclopedia indicates he should be covered in this encyclopedia. Chubbles (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep @Johnpacklambert: @Atlantic306: @Oaktree b: @Devokewater: @Cordless Larry: WP:BIODELETE does not apply when someone has a bio article in a major relevant reference work, i.e. here The New Grove. when you voted was the New Grove bio article not listed in the sources? As New Grove article shows Turner is the major English musicologist in the field of Spanish renaissance music. As well as being a conductor. Try the "Bruno Turner is" seach in GBooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Also I click GNews and the first thing that comes up is Aug 2017 Bruno Turner as one of "More than 50 leading figures from the music world, including John Rutter and Judith Weir, protest against a ruling at St Sepulchre-without-Newgate" Reverse this concert ban at our musicians’ church. With all due respect to Mr Turner, whose musicology I greatly respect, you cannot be a public figure in the New Grove and in public petitions of leading figures from the music world one minute and be objecting to a Knowledge biography the next. The fact that the biography is completely uncontroversial and includes career information also available in dozens of CD booklets and magazine articles really makes deletion impossible. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that source wasn't referenced in the version that was nominated for deletion, In ictu oculi, and indeed was only added today. I will contact the article subject as a courtesy. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

An update from OTRS: the article subject writes that (paraphrased) he's never sought publicity, but if it pleases Knowledge editors and readers with an interest in him, he would now be happy for the article to be kept given that it's been significantly improved. This discussion is heading towards a keep now anyway, but with this update in mind, I'm happy to withdraw my nomination, which was made on behalf of the article subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep moved to keep in view of the above and additional reliable sourcing, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep - inclusion in a major music encyclopedia is clear evidence of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 30 October 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 result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Dinesh Krishnan

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

Couldn't find any sources about this person. This is WP:Too soon for an article as the subject is yet to receive awards. Also note that this person (, ) is not the same person as (], ). TamilMirchi (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete: does not meet WP:notability, and I could not find any sources on this individual.Jjj84206 (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete It is far past the time when Knowledge should tolerate articles lacking any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ritchie333 16:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Clinical Knowledge Network (CKN)

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

This article appears to be promotional, and the subject is not (from what I can tell) notable. longchess (talk · contribs · block user) 23:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. longchess (talk · contribs · block user) 23:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. longchess (talk · contribs · block user) 23:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I doubt it is promotional. The wording of what little there is in the article isn't overtly promotional. I can find no coverage in independent reliable sources. As best I can tell, this is an intranet site for Queensland Health based on this. I suppose one might merge to Queensland Health, but does it really make sense for an intranet site to be in that article? My own editorial judgement on that is no. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete Non notable per above. ♟♙ (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Grabilla

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

After my recent experience with AfD for Next.js, I have grown more accustomed to the notability criteria for software. This article, fails spectacularly. It has no significant coverage in reliable sources of any kind that I can find. It is therefore not notable. The blogs and news can be used as sources in the article in appropriate places, but they are a long way from reliable sources providing significant coverage. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. This is non-notable, generic software (and obsolete, at that). There are literally hundreds of freeware, shareware, and commercial applications that do what this one does (and more). The sources are almost all primary. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was redirect to XMOS. As an WP:ATD. Ping for protection if it gets reverted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

XCore Architecture

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

WP:NOTMANUAL

Written primarily (entirely?) by COI accounts. Cites only primary sources. drt1245 (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete per non, technical manual --Devokewater (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment There is a suitable redirect target (XMOS; unless that article is deleted too of course). Pavlor (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 22:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Kayode Michael Fayehun

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

Fail to see how this musician is notable, almost all the sources are primary or are mainly about his album promotions. the topic of this article fails WP:NMUSICIAN , it fails wikipedia notability guildlines, another upcoming musician without any relevant to speak about , completely and utterly non-notable musician, sourced entirely to press releases .Samat lib (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 24. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy Delete under G11 - Agreed. Hardly any reliable sources even mention him. It fails WP:NMUSICIAN. The one and only 4thfile4thrank {talk} 23:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
It also looks like pure advertising. I places a db-spam tag so it can be speedy deleted as an advertisement. The one and only 4thfile4thrank {talk} 23:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete — It baffles me how this article has been under the radar this long, it’s blatant UPE on a non notable musician who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 03:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete (or Speedy Delete under WP:G11). Note that the singer's professional name is Kaydex. Regardless, a search for that or his birth name lead to the usual Nigerian media sources that simply reprint press releases with no analysis, and otherwise he is only visible at the typical streaming and retail services. None of those serve as reliable sources and the WP article is shamelessly promotional. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 19:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom subject of the article fails NMUSICBIO woefully. Em-mustapha 03:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per everyone above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 16:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Esad Kurtović

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

Very accomplished, lots of published material, but very anemic citation count (highest is 35). Can't see where he meets any of the other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, and definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 19:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 19:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Strong keep - As I explained in edit-summary when removing prod template, and subsequently in TP, BLP article on academic E.Kurtović is very important in context of Bosnian historiography, so I really think that I have valid reason to contest this ~~PROD~~ nomination. Beside the argument postulated in my edit-summary, I also do not see violation of criteria given in WP:GNG and especially in WP:NACADEMIC - an explanation given by nominator surely contains a bit of contradictory claim, where "accomplished" academic, which Kurtović certainly is, both accomplished and very prominent in his own academic environment, somehow fails to meet aforementioned WP:NACADEMIC. Also postulated in edit-summary is my belief that Google Scholar citation count is not decisive criteria for inclusion on Knowledge, as such would render too many prominent scholars working in small and very small, especially non-English language, academic milieus and in a fields and subjects of exclusively local significance and on specific topics, unfairly omitted from the project - Kurtović is very prominent Medievalist in Balkan and in particular Bosnian-Herzegovinian context, so I am sorry but I can't agree with this nomination and I feel that I need to contest it. As for "anemic" references, well, that was never the reason for article deletion, even when lacking completely we deal with that issue with template messages, unless article is obviously failing on notability.--౪ Santa ౪ 20:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Mild Keep Seems to be notable if he wrote a three-book volume on the subject and has an Authority Control listing, which means he's been indexed in worldwide libraries. However, the article has a list of over 60 publications/articles/whatever they are, without telling much about the author. Would need a rewrite to be kept. Would be best to delete and start over with better sources, not simply provide a rambling list of items. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep Definitely notable through his publications and accomplishments, even though there are many improvements needed.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Mild Keep He has several notable works in his bibliography. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. Article hijacking among the other issues presented. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hetvi Karia

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

Likely-non-notable businessperson, some discussion already at Knowledge talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Hetvi Karia (permalink). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Promo. Non-notable person. I expand upon this further in the above-linked WT:IN discussion. Zindor (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete: per WP:G11 ChunnuBhai (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. no evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Delete: per WP:G11. No need to waste time debating it. Roller26 (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: It will soon be speedy deleted as spam that has no potential to be encyclopedic. Also, it not only fails WP:G11, but also fails WP:A7. The one and only 4thfile4thrank {talk} 12:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
delete delete delete. Nothing but garbage blackhat SEO spam. Praxidicae (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems

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

This is pretty clearly not a notable topic on its own. It's essentially based on a single source: a paper which just came out and is making the rounds in the pop-sci press. It's a mildly interesting result that might warrant a sentence or two in a related article, but there's nowhere near enough here for such a hyper-narrow topic. Knowledge is not a dumping groud of science headlines. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with the above: this is an example of a single very recently published paper that got some press coverage, but isn't otherwise notable. It's an interesting topic, but too soon for a WP article based on just this one new paper. Aldebarium (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment - It is currently flagged as undergoing expansion, so it may improve, but as it stands it does not justify an article that is basically about exoplanets and their detection, with the added spin that if we can detect them, they can detect us. Given that there is no evidence of such a 'they', it is all just one researcher's headline-grabbing self-promotion of what has become a mundane discovery of another batch of exoplanets. This is a classical example of why creating an article for every news story that appears in the popsci press is a bad idea. Unless there are a lot more references out there that get added in the pending edits, Delete.Agricolae (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep and move to Earth Transit Zone per Sheik et al. 2020. This is one of the oldest topics in modern SETI and the search for exoplanets, and is important and significant for acquiring target searches. Per the cited study author, the literature for this subject includes Filippova & Strelnitskij 1988; Castellano et al. 2004; Shostak & Villard 2004; Conn Henry et al. 2008; Nussinov 2009; Heller & Pudritz 2016; Wells et al. 2018; and Sheik et al. 2020. Neither popsci nor headline grabbing, but rather the latest results of newer datasets based on TESS and Gaia, building on the original research subject. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

None of this is about detecting earth from distant stars, it is about detecting distant stars that hypothetical LGM might be able to detect earth from - it is just a specialized set of exoplanets of particular interest to LGM-hunters, basically just a cross-categorization. Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't parse your comment. Sheik et al. 2020:

As defined in Heller & Pudritz (2016), the ETZ is the projection of a band around Earth’s ecliptic onto the celestial plane, where ETI observers could detect transits by Earth across the Sun. This band is between 0.520◦ and 0.537◦ wide, centered on the ecliptic, with the variance due to the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit.

The idea of the ecliptic as a preferred region for a SETI search has been around for a long time (Filippouva & Strelnitskij 1988). Some authors have compiled lists of stars with this preferential geometry (i.e Filippova 1990, 1992; Castellano et al. 2004), while others have proposed searches of the region using both optical and radio telescopes (Shostak & Villard 2004; Conn Henry et al. 2008).

This is all about detecting Earth from distant stars. It is the very subject. The newest paper in question simply builds on this already existing body of research and makes use of the latest TESS and Gaia datasets to further refine and identify potential distant star systems that might be watching us in the Earth Transit Zone. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Then you could add a few sentences to the Transit (astronomy) article about this. But the article under consideration is merely about one recent paper that counted the number of stars in this part of the sky within a certain distance. That's not the basis for an article. The SETI stuff is a complete red herring. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

There has never been a single instance of detecting earth from a distant star (that we know of). The summary you give says the same thing as I said - it is about detecting planets that hypothetical LGM with hypothetical characteristics and hypothetical capabilities might hypothetically detect earth. It is nothing but a SETI-fueled projection of our own ability to detect exoplanets onto these hypothetical LGM, not actual detection of earth from other solar systems. Agricolae (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This does not sound like an argument for deletion, it sounds like some strange bias against SETI. I will therefore let it stand as an example of prejudice. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a bias against SETI - a bias in favor of reality. When we don't know that LGM actually exist, nor the form they would take, nor their technological prowess were they to exist, then we haven't the slightest clue what criteria would delimit their ability to observe Earth, and hence what characteristics a planet must have to allow these hypothetical LGM to detect us. As such, this whole topic is really just about our ability to detect exoplanets, projected onto this entirely hypothetical yet incredibly specific type of LGM that just happen to have the exact characteristics and technological development we arbitrarily select for them. Agricolae (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The subject of Earth Transit Zone deserves its own article and encyclopedic treatment, just like all the other zone articles we have. The article under discussion is not based on one paper, but at least eight separate papers alone, and has significant coverage in the literature to merit a stand-alone. The SETI "stuff" isn't a "red herring" at all, it's part of the topic. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep - As OA of this very newly created article - currently undergoing development and expansion as noted by the {{Under Construction}} tag in the article - I *entirely* agree with the comments and reasons very well described above by User:Viriditas - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep This is not a new concept, and older references could be used to prove notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep – clearly a notable topic on its own and while a single main source (reported on by multiple other sources) has been sufficient for many other short articles (example), other relevant sources do exist. This could also be added to the article SETI, like I recently suggested on its talk page, but the topic may be broader than what would be appropriate for a section of that article and this article could have more detail than what would be due there. My only concern about it is that it may be a bit too narrow but the article could be broadened in its topic later on by being developed further / moved or could get merged into a broader article once such an article exists. Here is one exemplary source that could be relevant for the broader article. --Prototyperspective (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Weak Keep: I think this could be part of a more comprehensive article on direct imaging of exoplanets. Right now all we've got is List of directly imaged exoplanets and Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets#Direct_imaging. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep The focus of the article is currently narrow but this is not a reason to delete. The narrow focus arises from the source which has provoked it. As more sources are consulted then we might expect the topic to flesh out. So, do such sources exist? It turns out that they do as here's an entire book on the subject – The Earth as a Distant Planet. This demonstrates the potential of this article, which has only existed for 1 day. Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:BITE. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep The article already has references proving the article passes the general notability guidelines, such as https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/10/22/are-we-being-watched-there-are-509-star-systems-with-a-great-view-of-life-on-earth-say-scientists/amp/ Dream Focus 23:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment, I find it hard to believe nom followed BEFORE, as they stunningly sent this to AfD after four hours of it being created. What alternatives to deleting were discussed? Glee 00:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep- It's not a great title and the content is still pretty bad but the topic is a legitimate one. Reyk _YO! 09:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep, certainly notable, discussed in scholarly academic sources. Right cite (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep for reasons cited by User:Andrew Davidson and User:Dream Focus. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Next Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election

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

WP:FUTURE. If/When elections will be declared, corresponding election page may be made. Knowledge cannot have random articles with unrelated encyclopedic content for articles supposedly meant for future possible events. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles about upcoming elections that are almost certain to happen are fine, and are referred to as "Next" if no date has been set yet. Are there other compelling reasons to delete this someone not from the area might not understand? SportingFlyer T·C 18:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
SportingFlyer, almost certain to happen may not be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir for now. The state has been divided into 2 and the two territories are under President's Rule till further orders. The leaders of mainstream political parties of Kashmir have been under year long political detention. ChunnuBhai (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete Obvious WP:CRYSTAL. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Chamber of Digital Commerce. Eddie891 _Work 22:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Perianne Boring

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

That article was sent to PROD for the following reason: notability not established, not sufficient reliable coverage for this beauty queen turned lobbyist. The Washington Times is local news, only covering her because she ran in DC. WUSA9 is also local news. The WUSA9 article contains no original research, basing primarily on an interview with her, it is not substantial coverage. The forbes source which was not criticized is WP:RS and therefore not worthy of a speedy deletion Comte0 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - not enough for notability. The Forbes piece reads like a subject-sourced blurb, functionally a press release, and this should have been obvious - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete Somebody doing their job and expecting some kind of recognition. scope_creep 12:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete Notability guidelines not met. The Forbes article does not significant independent coverage and there is no other notability. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Redirect to Chamber of Digital Commerce: Barely found anything about her. Search results return mostly articles where she's mentioned as the founder of Chamber of Digital Commerce. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Reuben K. Davis

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lettler 18:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler 18:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lettler 18:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler 18:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lettler 18:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete I have found several mentions 1 (looks like WP mirror or vice versa?), 2, 3, but it's not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. Less Unless (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Milton Martinez

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep, significant coverage i.e. in Thrasher which I guess amounts to the pinnacle of the skating world. Geschichte (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The Thrasher isn't an notable publication either. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha! Geschichte (talk) 19:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Skater of the Year in 2019 should be enough of a notable achievement. Sportsfan 1234 please avoid editing/nominating for deletion skateboarding articles if you don't nothing about skateboarding. It's a complicated sport/activity that doesn't follow the traditional notability metrics. SOTY is fairly clear, think of it like the NBA MVP award. --Wil540 art (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep The Thrasher Skater of the Year award is equivalent to FIFA's Ballon d'Or or the NBA's MVP. It establishes Martinez as the premier skateboarder of 2019, at least according to Thrasher, the most notable skateboard publication in the world. --Eklektikos (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Skydog (film)

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

Non-notable film, only has coverage by one significant source, all other "coverage" is press releases, databases or user-submitted reviews, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Improve This entry needs more news sources. It is a fairly popular title as it is in the top 5000 titles on IMDb. See SKYDOG at IMDb.
- Improvement would be nice if there were reliable sources to pull from, but I haven't found them. IMDb is not one. Can you find any? BOVINEBOY2008 20:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Film does not seem to have been distributed and only has one source.Prussian-Hussar (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Bukola Sawyerr Izeogu

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

Subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Not enough significant coverage by reliable sources. Stormy Chamber (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Stormy Chamber (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Stormy Chamber (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable PR professional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete non notable, PR --Devokewater (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ritchie333 22:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Clem, West Virginia

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

Looks non-notable. A 1945 history of West Virginia calls it a post office, and as that source makes a distinction with calling many other entries villages (the v. designation), it looks to only be a post office. 1981 USGS publication calls it a locale (geography), which falls below the WP:GEOLAND standard. Topographic maps show a max of two buildings here. Newspapers.com brings up nothing useful searching either with or without the county name; the guy it's apparently named after's name brings up no hits within the state of West Virginia. County history published six years after the "founding" of Clem does not mention it. old government report lists Clem among pre-RFD route post offices, but doesn't mention it among the city or unincorporated villages of the county. As a locale, it fails GEOLAND, and the significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG is not present. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep Since the community shares its name with a somewhat common name, it's a little hard to research, but Clem certainly appears to be more than a locale. Its post office survived into the ZIP Code era and was given a ZIP Code of 26614 before it closed (go here and search the 266 range for proof). It had two schools as of 1927, according to state reports. An obituary from 1969 documents multiple residents, including the deceased. I found another record of a soldier from Clem, and this source seemed to have information from snippets, though it isn't available online. And that's in addition to the source in the article about the name origin and the community's continued inclusion in modern highway maps, including the one cited in the article. I'd argue that having a designated ZIP Code counts as government recognition - by the 1960s, you didn't have the problem of rural post offices with no associated community anymore - but in any case, there's an abundance of evidence that this is a real and substantial community. TheCatalyst31 21:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete The above arguments for a recognizable populated place that is known as "Clem" is overstated and likely misinterpreted. For example, the reference to zip code, schools, and even the County Road map cited in the Knowledge article all reference a post office and lack any definitive mention of a populated place. I disagree with the argument that the mere presence of a post office proves the presence of an associated community of some notability. The other references to "Clem" also likely refer just to an informal, local name for part of Braxton County and do not provide sufficient evidence of a populated place / community of any significance. Furthermore, historic USGS topographic maps and Goggle Earth imagery all lack any indication of any past or present clustering of structures and roads that is indicative of a recognizable populated place / real and substantial community of any significance or notability. There simply is a lack of any credible evidence of notabillity for this entity. Clem, West Virginia fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Paul H. (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep as the post office confers legal recognition and the obituaries confirm residents, thus it is a community. ~EDDY ~ 18:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 08:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep Clem, West Virginia has people living there. Thank You-RFD (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 22:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

2 Hours Love

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

Couldn't find many reliable sources for this film in English or Telugu. (Telugu: 2 హౌర్స్ లవ్) The sources listed in the article are unreliable sources. There is a review at 123Telugu . TamilMirchi (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Does not pass WP:NFILM. --Ab207 (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep as has enough significant coverage in reliable sources already in the article to pass WP:GNG so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment @Atlantic306: Which sources in the article are reliable?TamilMirchi (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete fail WP:NFILM . NO evidence of notability Samat lib (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NFILM and nom. Roller26 (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep - has 4 reviews in the external links already in addition to the 123Telugu listed by nom; making 5 reviews. Are these not reliable sources? Spiderone 23:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ritchie333 22:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Chamatkara Chintamani

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

Apparently quite obscure treatise by Bhatta Narayana. I was (just) able to verify its existence (), and the existence of what looks to be another book by the same name (). I considered a redirect to Bhatta Narayana, but it's not mentioned in the target and about all that could be said is that it is a treatise on astrology. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Of the three sources, two are to the book itself (and one of those has been removed) and the third is from a non-RS astrology website. No indication of passing GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Most responses are for a straight deletion of this article, mostly due to the questionable notability of the subject. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 16:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The New Art Fest

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage. The one included source in this article does not actually mention the subject anywhere. Dylsss (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Dylsss (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dylsss (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I just started to publish the article some minutes ago. I added some sources: daily newspaper, official governement website and Portugals Nb 1 TV channel.Ernstludwigstein (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment With sources like that don't actually mention the subject (i.e. Reuters, Forbes) it's hard to pick out the more useful, genuine sources. Those should be removed first and foremost. It would be easier to determine notability once that is sorted. I would suggest that the article be Drafted in the meantime. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the sources of Forbes and Reuters: There is a link to the Lisbon Web Summit: That explains quite well how the city changes towards a start up hub. Anybody who clicks the link will understand why this mood for a "art and tech" festival came up in Lisbon. All current sources are now about the festival, the invited artists, the partners etc.Ernstludwigstein (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Draftify notable event, possibly. But not ready for mainspace. Give creator time to work on it. StarM 15:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein 04:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment I'm concerned with the creator's possible WP:COI, and have opened a discussion at that noticeboard. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Sourcing is extremely week, it seems that all the sources are primary. Does not meet GNG criteria for notability. Maybe in a few year, but now it's definitely WP:TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

-————

Comment This article is of questionable relevance to begin with, then add the dubious and primary sources and obvious COI editing. It seems like an easy call.
Delete - I weigh in on the side of deleting the article for the litany of reasons listed above. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment I would note that the sources which have been added are mostly primary and non-independent e.g. the official website of this festival, governmental websites, the program for this festival. As far as I can tell, the only secondary independent sources are and which are both to the same umbigo magazine website, thus I'm still not convinced this event is notable. Dylsss 17:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was redirect to The Kung Fu Master. Eddie891 _Work 14:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Jiji scaria

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

Only a single film released. Fails WP:NACTOR and no other major achievements to become notable. A WP:TOOSOON case. - The9Man 11:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - The9Man 11:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man 11:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. - The9Man 11:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to The Kung Fu Master since that's the only thing he's known for, if he's known for anything later then that can be easily split out. --Paul ❬talk❭ 15:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to The Kung Fu Master. Indistinguishable from all the other Indian entrepreneur spam pieces. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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. Ritchie333 16:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Remark Holdings

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

An apparent UPE creation () edited heavily by other apparent UPE/COI editors (, ) with repeated attempts to paste their press-kit into the article (, ). The most recent edits by an IP, which have since been revision-deleted by Moneytrees for copyright infringement, attempted to do the same, while purging any potentially controversial content. Sources do not establish that the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH, and I don't think we should do them the favour of a big search for sources and a rewrite: Our response to paid editing should not be "buy one, get one free"; we should not be rewarding unethical marketing efforts like this in any way. Hence delete per WP:NOBOGOF and WP:TNT, with no prejudice against recreation by someone who a) is not paid or b) has disclosed their conflict of interest. Blablubbs 10:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs 10:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs 10:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs 10:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

BatDad

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

I declined an A7 on this article - there are sources, however there's this overall air that this article can't be much more than a tabloid piece, instead of an encyclopedia article. Ritchie333 09:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete the sourcing is not of the type that would justify an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. Surprised to not find more sources but most in-depth I could find is this in PBS NewsHour, more as a human interest story, and can't write an encyclopedia article based on that and "check out these video clips" alone. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 18:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Pingus

AfDs for this article:

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

With only five secondary sources and scarce coverage on Google and Archive.org, this article about a Lemmings clone seems doomed to remain being a permastub. While the sources demonstrate that the subject is notable for niche audiences such as the ones interested in FOSS and Linux gaming, it does not appear to be quite as notable enough for a general encyclopedia as even Tux Racer, despite the former's featuring penguins (Tux, is that you?). It will probably bear the same fate as the PySol article, with which I had recently dealt. Free Media Kid! 09:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Free Media Kid! 09:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete The bar to entry is a bit higher than in 2003 and this article appears to fail WP:GNG in its current state. "Only 5 secondary sources" would normally still make it notable enough but the majority of them are listicles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep - After reading a couple of the sources, I am struck with "why would Wikipedians want to delete a serviceable stubby article about a video game that achieved Top 10 Linux games status according to CNN?" What harm is befalling our knowledge community by retaining this article? - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As explained by WP:HARMLESS, As for articles that do not conform to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. Appearing in a few "top 10" lists does not strike me as "significant coverage", and as a mere video game clone I wouldn't expect it to._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

CNN strikes me as significant. - AppleBsTime (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AppleBsTime: It's not actually written by someone from CNN, it was copied there from "LinuxWorld" and clearly states "not endorsed by CNN". Even then, it's just a short paragraph about the game._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: Regardless, I don't believe that this particular article sets a precedent for "literally anything" appearing in Knowledge. I recognize that as a slippery slope fallacy, which I reject. Anyway, let's see how this turns out. Neither of our lives will be substantially impacted by either outcome. - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep At least one solid article in Linux Journal: (note only half of the article is about Pingus). I found also 3 medium-size articles in Czech and German media: (pro-linux.de; site claims to have an editorial staff, but may be close to a blog), (root.cz; seems to be a RS), (idnes.cz; major Czech news site). MorphOS version was reviewed in Amiga Future 107 (p. 17; full page review). I expect even broader coverage in other Linux-related media (eg. a short article should be in Linux Format 153, January 2012). Enough to satisfy GNG. Pavlor (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 13:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep: The Linux For You source cited in the article is a full review from a published magazine. The Linux Journal source that Pavlor found is also detailed coverage from a magazine. This passes GNG. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep Was listed as game of the month in a prominent gaming mag, so sketchy sources probably sufficient. Prussian-Hussar (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Rostekhnadzor. Sandstein 11:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Rostechnadzor Permit

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

A bunch of copied technical information without sourcing. It remains unclear what is the subject of this article. If anything useful exists, it should be added to the Rostekhnadzor article. Beagel (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to Rostekhnadzor in absence of references. The only tidbit of applicable information in the provided references seems to be this; hardly a usable source for the article. Can be expanded if/when someone takes the time to do this properly. Alternatively, stubbify down to a definition (which could be sourced to the above link) and slap {{expand Russian}} on it, as the ruWP article seems well sourced. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Guillem Rodríguez

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Spanish 3rd and 4th levels are not fully-pro. BlameRuiner (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Per norm. Club played are not fully professional. Duke of London (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete has not played at the fully professional level. The fact that anyone who has played at the fully professional level on that detail alone is considered default notable is in my view a far too broad level of inclusion, but this person clearly does not even meet that absurdly broad criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete :The player has not played at fully professional level and thus fails GNG. Indianfootball98 (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - fails all relevant guidelines for footballers and no guarantee that they will ever be notable Spiderone 16:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. czar 18:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Dominican International School Kaohsiung

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

Per the lack of sources to meet WP:ORG, the 2017 ruling on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and the WP:COI of the article's creator, I don't believe this organization is notable enough to deserve an article. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete. Only one passing mention of the school in news soucres: 1. There is no significant coverage of this Taiwanese international school in English or Chinese language sources, thus failing WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. -- Dps04 (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Everyone seems to agree that the current article is severely lacking. However, there is no clear consensus for what the best solution to the situation is. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Physics education in the United Kingdom

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

It's not established that this specific topic merits its own article outside of Physics education and Education in the United Kingdom. The only source that goes towards establishing WP:GNG is a blog post, which has iffy reliability. Other sourcing is universities advertising their physics programs, and I mean there's one press release that gives a couple of sentences to physics. I'd expect more to establish notability. Eddie891 _Work 14:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 _Work 14:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 _Work 14:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep I'd expect more consideration of alternatives to deletion. Such as merger into Physics education, which currently seems to be just about HK and the USA. And, as we covere other subjects at the UK level, it seems reasonable to keep this page too. See Category:Education in the United Kingdom by subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Selective merge to physics education per Andrew. "Selective" because it's so weakly sourced. But, in general, a merge seems sensible. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep - the general physics education typifies what mostly goes in physics education, whereas this UK article is about how sparse physics education is in the UK. I fail to see how North American editors would have the slightest insight into how physics is taught in the UK? Not enough people with insight have written reviews here - instead it's generic editors who patrol deletion discussions. The proposal to delete looks expedient and not hugely believable. More information should be added to the article, such as about the STFC for example?94.118.119.76 (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have insight as I had a UK education in physics. Merger to the more general page seemed sensible in that:

physics is not especially associated with local geography, politics and history and so the syllabus will tend to be similar in most countries
the UK education system has influenced other countries which may still use their examinations

But, on the other hand, we have topics of this sort for other subjects and so it would be inconsistent to do this one differently: see Category:Education in the United Kingdom by subject. I'll update my !vote. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment The article title doesn't work for me. I expect that decent articles could be written about Physics education in Scotland and Physics education in England and Wales, but the subjects are distinct since the nations have entirely different education systems - separate curriculums, administered by separate organisations, offering different qualifications, with exams sat at different ages - they're different from the start of primary education all the way through to university level (with four-year degrees in Scotland compared to three-year degrees in England and Wales, which are funded completely differently). I guess we could cover it all at one location, but I don't see why we'd do that as you'd need to describe each of them completely separately. I don't know much about the situation in Northern Ireland, but for me this is either a merge to Physics education, or it needs splitting into different articles. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps I am just reiterating what Girth Summit said above, but this article is a mess, particularly about Scotland. My cohort and I learned from the "Physics is Fun" textbook from early teens, sat the O-grade at age 15-16, the Higher at 16-17 and then left school: the stuff here about GCSEs and trying to derive and compare age 18 school exam stats doesn't fit with that (uncited apples-and-oranges original research) or, I think, with the several subsequent rebuilds of the curriculum and introduction of the Advanced Higher, all of which go unmentioned here. Nor does it cover the place of Physics in the historical Scottish university curriculum. Perhaps the article could be improved to address such deficiencies and cite or remove all the original research, but I think it would always show stress in the welds of differing systems. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I must be a bit younger than you - I did my physics Standard grade exam aged 15, and my Higher exam at 16; I could have done a CSYS at 17, but I was too lazy and didn't need it to get into uni. None of which is encompassed by the sentence The Higher system of examinations allow a greater spread of subjects to be taken at 18 - by the time I turned 18, my secondary education examinations were a (rather hazy) memory, and I had been at university for several months, which is not unusual north of the border.

I think the only answer is to Move this to Physics Education in England and Wales, perhaps someone will be interested enough to write one about Scotland at some point, but they are two entirely different subjects, they shouldn't be at the same title. I don't particularly want to see it deleted, I'm sure an article could be written about it, but not at this title. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - There is nothing in this article that warrants it having it's own page. Inexpiable (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge to Physics education, though I wouldn't object to a rename to Physics Education in England and Wales as above. Article needs tidying up, but AFD isn't cleanup. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep but rename: I believe education about a major field in science in a nation will meet GNG, there will be sources in journals and from conferences. The article needs work and it should be moved to an appropriate name. // Timothy :: talk 13:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Dukuhjati Wetan 02 Elementary School

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

Does not meet WP:NORG, unremarkable elementary school. MB 05:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MB 05:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MB 05:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I couldn't find any sources that would suggest this can pass WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. All I could dig up were which are all routine database listings. Primary schools need to have WP:SIGCOV to warrant a stand-alone article. If anyone does find some in-depth sources, please ping me. Spiderone 11:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete A village-level elementary school way below of the notability threshold. –Austronesier (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete Unless sources with significant coverage can be found, this is not notable. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete. The article is translated from the Indonesian version, and its style looks like an advertisement. BengkelBerkah05 (Talks/Contribs) 02:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 14:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Chichi, California

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

No such place listed in GNIS or labeled on the topos. Gudde calls it a "placer mining area". Appears in a mine listing. No meaningful newspapers.com hits. Looks to be yet another non-notable minor gold mine. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

delete The directions take one to a rather vague area with a few widely scattered buildings but nothing one night guess to be a former town, or even a former mine. No evidence this was a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete No post office. Confirmed that it is not in GNIS, confirmed trivial mention in Gudde. Newspapers.com was no help. Cxbrx (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 14:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Buckeye Hill, California

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

Another case for which Durham's book is the only source. Topos show nothing in the vicinity he describes, and I can't find any other source. There are references to "Buckeye Hill" as a mine but they are not in Calaveras County. Mangoe (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I had slightly better luck finding information. Gudde says about the same thing as the article: Ohio people in 1849, although he does specify there was a store. But that's about it. Not on the topos. The only other coverage for Buckeye Hills I can find is for places in El Dorado and Nevada Counties. Don't see how this can be notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - No post office. GNIS has no Buckeye Hill in Calaveras county. There was a Buckeye Hill Mine, which might be in the same location and is not notable. I agree that Gudde states that there was a store. Tracking down "Jarman, Arthur, 1927, Hunts Hill, Quaker Hill, and Buckeye Hill: California Min. Bur. Rept. 23, pp. 100-101." might provide more information. Newspapers.com has a few hits for "Buckeye Hill in California", but they seem to be mostly related to mining and there was no evidence of a real settlement, other than a 1895 shooting. As this locale has no legal recognition, it does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. The scant coverage is trivial and does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. czar 17:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

BA Systems

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

Unable to find any in-depth coverage on this company. Fails GNG and NCORP. M4DU7 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete fails WP: NCORP --Devokewater (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. czar 17:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Rune Glifberg

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep as X games gold medalist, unless it can be explained that the X games are irrelevant in the skateboarding world. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

KEEP - Glifberg is undoubtedly notable. --Wil540 art (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep - notable enough for an article. SportsOlympic (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep Rune Glifberg has 12 X-Games medals (roughly equivalent to a world championship in athletics or a Champion's League medal in soccer), as well as a huge number of other major contest wins. He has parts in three of the most notable skate videos of the last 20 yrs, he appears as a playable character (one of only ten skaters) in the original Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater, and has skated professionally for Flip for 25yrs+. His coverage in TWS, Thrasher etc. has been prolific. Eklektikos (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Grand Hyatt Duta

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

There is nothing notable about this planned building and it 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) 17:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses -related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep at 60 stories the building would be a skyscraper and inherently notable. However the notability now is derived from the "Failure to Launch". The hotel is discussed every few years as an abandoned major project, and the latest (2019) is that it may again launch. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - ordinary hotel. I thought only completed skyscrapers were inherently notable. Ping me to convince me. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

leaning delete As it stands, any notability would be notoriety as a failed project. Instead, the citations are all building fansites. Mangoe (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - I'm not convinced that there is inherent notability here. The subject fails WP:GNG Spiderone 18:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Grand Hyatt Colombo

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel and it 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) 17:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep a Skyscraper is inherently notable and passes WP:GEOFEAT Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - ordinary hotel. There's no evidence it's tall enough to be inherently notable. If you find such evidence, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 19 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, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. As they rightly point out, passing WP:NBUILD specifically requires "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", which does not appear to exist for this hotel. Rorshacma (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete non notable building + hotel Devokewater (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. (And no further details on the green roof emerged.) Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Olive 8

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

There is nothing notable about this building and it 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) 17:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep one floor short of a Skyscraper. Notable building housing notable businesses. Passes WP:GEOFEAT social, economic, or architectural importance Lightburst (talk) 20:35, 17 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, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

delete I am quite dubious about forty stories as a bright line of notability, but even in Seattle this building is not remarkable. According to our own list it is only the 25 tallest building in the city, and that list shows over a dozen under construction of similar or greater height. This building, and all the other hotels that have been nominated of late, need to satisfy notablility the old-fashioned WP:GNG, which the sources given certainly do not meet. Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - There does not appear to be anything innately notable about this unremarkable building, and there is no real coverage of it outside basic statistics. LIghtburst cites WP:GEOFEAT, but the remainder of the guideline that he quotes says "but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", which does not seem to exist for this structure. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Mild keep Could be notable for the green roof feature, otherwise a 10ish year old skyscraper with no particular architectural features/heritage listing. Would require many more details on the green roof feature to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. Whether or not it is a "skyscraper" is irrelevant, as there is no SN giving skyscrapers notability.Onel5969 23:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Colestah

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Her notability seems to center on:

being one of Chief Kamiakin's five wives.
participating in the Battle of Four Lakes where she was "armed with a stone war club, vowing to fight by his side. When Kamiakin was wounded, Colestah carried him off and used her skills in traditional tribal medicine to nurse him back to health".

In source after source, this is pretty much all that is mentioned about her. See: .

Being married to someone famous, or being notable for one event, does not support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

KEEP this should have just placed a stub label on it. There is likely more to contribute, but from other book sources. Juju (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jujucabana: Could you list some other book sources which have additional information to support notability? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: No, this is not my area of expertise, but I think that this should be listed as a stub until someone who writes on Native American history cares to further elaborate it. We don’t have a wide array material on Knowledge including this type of history, so marking it with a stub label will encourage researchers on this topic to fill in more information. Juju (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep The sources are excellent and the article is adequate. We are an encyclopedia and it is quite normal for encyclopedias to have brief entries. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep – per WP:BIO. She has an entry in The Encyclopedia of Amazons: Women Warriors from Antiquity to the Modern Era, which is analogous to an entry in a Dictionary of National Biography. While BPL1E is noted in the nom, she has been mentioned in many books over the years in relation to the Battle of Four Lakes (Battle of Spokane Plains) and Yakama history. It will probably remain stub-sized until physical library research can be done. However even stub articles on notable women add value to the encyclopedia.Netherzone (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep: In addition to the sources already present in the article, I added Spokane & the Inland Empire: An Interior Pacific Northwest Anthology (2005) and Renegade Tribe: The Palouse Indians and the Invasion of the Inland Pacific Northwest (1986). I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Holiday Inn Records

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. NMUSIC does not address record labels. Article makes no claim to notability, single source does not establish notability. Musch of the article is OR. BEFORE showed mentions, but nothing that meets RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. The name was later changed to Klondike Records, but BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV and there is not an article on Klondike Records to redirect/merge. // Timothy :: talk 20:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep Meets GNG. Besides the significant Billboard coverage already referenced in the article, there is additional coverage from Billboard on September 1, 1962 (though much shorter). The label is significantly discussed on page 135 of "Sun Records: The Brief History of the Legendary Recording Label" 1980, ISBN 9780825631610. It is discussed over two pages on "Good Rockin' Tonight: Sun Records and the Birth of Rock 'N' Roll", 2017, ISBN 9781250182111. This label's relation to the Sun Records label, the involvement of Sam Phillips, and the type of material issued by this label make this a highly desirable and discussed label among record collectors, I am certain there are many pre-internet collector's publications from the heyday of "oldies" collecting (1970 - 1990 roughly) which discuss this. I can understand why the nominator had a hard time finding sources because a search for "Holiday Inn Records" will unfortunately turn up many, many, many hits unrelated to this record label. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply I believe the above is a reason for a redirect, not a keep. Notability is not inherited from Sun Records, and the cites above contain nothing that meets RS SIGCOV addressing the topic directly and in-depth, but the article could be reasonably redirected with the information given above. There is no sourced content in the article that could be merged and it is inappropriate to merge unsourced content into another article. // Timothy :: talk 11:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, and am rather curious as to what your standards of "in-depth" are. The 1961 Billboard article is seven full news paragraphs about the topic. The 1962 Billboard article is a full paragraph about the topic. The 1980 book has a page devoted to the topic, and the 2017 book has two pages discussing the topic. On top of that GlobalDogProductions (the online legacy discography for 45s) has a complete discography of the label. That is five sources providing significant coverage. How is GNG not met? I never claimed this label inherited notability from Sun Records. The label has a separate and distinct history from Sun Records, and could not be merged into that label. I have explained why this label has drawn interest from collectors and music historians, since there is no SNG for record labels. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep This needs more references, but it's been around since 1961 and has signed quite a few notable artists. Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep - the source on the article is enough in itself for a keep per ORGDEPTH, the other stuff 78 mentioned is icing on the cake. 174.254.192.32 (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep - It was able to sign notable artists and had some reasonable coverage. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep: I added two magazine sources from 1968, talking about the label's first rock single and first full-length album: "Holiday Inn to Bow First Rock Single" (Billboard, 1968) and "More Diversifications for Holiday Inns" (Hotel & Motel Management, 1968). — Toughpigs (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep it needs tidying up --Devokewater (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Mahfuzul Haque

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

This article is full of references from unreliable sources, The article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG Arif Arif (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This user is indefinitely blocked from Bengali Knowledge for abuse. See the comments of an administrator of Bengali Knowledge about this user here. - Owais Al Qarni (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: Search by native name (মাহফুজুল হক) for more references here. Owais Al Qarni (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Note: This user included this AFD in Bangladesh related discussion but Undid it. Owais Al Qarni (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Not sure what's going on with this nomination but the nom would have to explain which sources cited in the article are unreliable and why. On the face of it, the subject is certainly sufficiently prominent to pass WP:POLITICIAN and at least the English language sources cited in the article do check out. There are others as well, e.g. . If there are other issues with the article, someone more familiar with the subject matter at hand needs to explain what they are. Nsk92 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep The status of an editor on another project has no bearing on their AfD nominations here unless there is evidence the deletion nomination is part of a pattern of cross-wiki abuse, which no-one has established here and the point should be withdrawn. That said, the article subject appears to pass WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG, based on the sources in article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 14:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Squeeze Tarela

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete — UPE article on a non notable musician who doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete No charted singles, only has given concerts in his home country. Making an album alone doesn't equate notability and no sales figures are provided. Any musician with decent equipment and a computer can make a CD. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - Those who frequent the Bands/Musicians AfD page will have noticed that the Nigerian record industry subjects Knowledge to the promotional blitz for every musician signed to any middling label. Press releases are sent to so-called music media outlets that merely reprint them with no analysis, and the musician is listed at every possible streaming service. Those blatantly unreliable media mentions are then used as "sources" for a Knowledge article that is simply another iteration of the same blitz. With all that being said, is Mr. Tarela any different? Nope, just the usual promo and streaming entries yet again. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 19:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete per Doomsdayer. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. Ə XPLICIT 00:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

List of wax figures of Lee Min-ho displayed at various places

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

There is no significance or anyone will see any notability for this article/list to exist. Do we need to create new pages for everything? At most, the content of this page can be included in actor's main article page → Lee Min-ho (actor). -ink&fables «talk» 11:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Why this page should be deleted?

1. Out of all the statues mentioned in the list, first two are already mentioned on actor's page. See the 2nd paragraph.

2. Other statues are completely based on unreliable sources.

a) For the statue at the Madame Tussauds, Beijing; it is sourced to JoinusWorld which is a question/answer website.

b) For others; it is sourced to YouTube channels which are neither official channels of Museums nor of any news agency. You can further see this discussion for what I want to convey: Can a youtube video be used as a source, when there is no version from any reliable source -ink&fables «talk» 13:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

we cannot mention all his statues in the main page article... now he as become a world famous actor more statue locations will be added to the list. we need the list articleMyhometownkorea (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 12:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge to Lee Min-ho – the content is so short it can be explained with just a few sentences in the main article. – Teratix ₵ 12:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Teratix; I will request you to reconsider your verdict, as now I have added statements in support which also objects the option of merger. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 13:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't Merge Its already five locations currently and it is set to be expanded in the future we need list article Myhometownkorea (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge. The list clearly fails WP:NLIST: there is no evidence that the set of statues is notable as a set.
At least one item on the list is sourced to reliable sources, so the list should be merged to the main article, where editors can assess how much prominence to give it and which items should be removed as unreliably sourced. it is highly unlikely that this list could ever be expanded to the point where it cannot be summarised in two or three lines, so there is no risk that a brief mention of the statues will overwhelm the main article.

Disclosure: the nominator notified me of this discussion because I was the only person other than the creator to have edited the page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete - all info that can be sourced has already been mentioned and reliably sourced in the main article; there is no content worth saving here; no point in redirecting either as it's not a likely search term Spiderone 14:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Procedural note. the article's creator @Myhometownkorea has:

inappropriately WP:CANVASSed me with a non-neutral message
removed the AFD banner from the article, even though that notice clearly says "this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed"

I see that @Myhometownkorea is a new editor, still learning how en.wp works ... but I hope that they will exercise more self-restaint whilst learning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete: Fails SAL. I really don't see the point in a merge or a redirect as all the notable info is already present in the main article, with refs. TheRedDomitor (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete - This is not a reasonable WP:SPLIT from the main article on Lee Min-ho, where the topic of his wax figures is already covered. Most of the sources here do not appear to be reliable sources so merger is unadvised, and this would not be a particularly useful search term for a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete Not enough importance to warrant own article. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
This AFD looks like using a wrecking ball to swat a gnat. Really all that need be said is that the information could be summarized in the parent article in a single sentence. Given that we're dealing with two notable wax museum chains, it's also a waste of time to complain about present sourcing. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Delete The article does not fit to stand on its own as it's already mentioned in the main article and some sources are unreliable. KRtau16 (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)