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

The result was delete. Tone 08:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarhad (1960 film)[edit]

Sarhad (1960 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable film, nothing found during search except database entries and videos. Tagged for notability for over 4 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just curious, what kind of information are we going to get for a 1960 film? Not all 1960 movies are Spartacus or Mughal-e-Aazam. We are only going to find references such as this from Times of India, BFI UK, IMDB, Geetmaala. That said this page does seem like it can do with some improvement. What is the incremental cost to keep? Ktin (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just going to WP:NFILM guidelines. At least 2 independent reviews is required to establish notability. None of the sources you listed do that, they are all databases. Wikipedia is not another "database" and therefore doesn't need entries for every film ever made. If reviews can be found to establish notability for this film, then it will stay after this discussion. However, if nothing can be found then what is the benefit to this "database" entry on Wikipedia? Donaldd23 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Donaldd23, I hear you. However, I do not think you will find that for Indian films from the 1960s. There will always be outliers (break-away blockbusters) like Mughal-e-Aazam, but, difficult to make the case that you will find it for other films. Alternately, you might have to look in vernacular media. Unfortunately, I am not of much help there. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ktin: This was the last in a series of 9 articles of similar quality created by one editor (blocked in 2016 for abusing multiple accounts) within the space of 40 minutes. It takes longer to research them for possible deletion than it took him to write them, and several hundred remain. I've saved a couple of his efforts by finding reviews. Narky Blert (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Narky Blert, Cool. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - sadly we have to stick to WP:NFILM and WP:GNG and this clearly fails both Spiderone 10:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The best I could find was a 3-line synopsis from BFI and a brief review in a 2012 blog, which says that "The background and the role did not suit Dev Anand at all and the film did not click with audience". Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ureme 8[edit]

Ureme 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable, nothing shows up in searches to establish notability except databases and other wikis. Tagged for notability for over a year. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unsourced, does not establish notability or significance. Aasim 08:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Generally per nom, nothing could be found except other wikis and databases. There is no coverage in multiple significant reliable independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VIP Stable[edit]

VIP Stable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable sports company. WP:BEFORE shows some primary sources and blog coverage, but no evidence of reliable, substantial and independent coverage Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: article has been hanging around for years with no references except for the company's own website. --Slashme (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. EverybodyEdits (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon Garden Party[edit]

Wimbledon Garden Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non notable sports spin off programme with WP:BEFORE only showing a very small number of passing mentions, predominantly BBC primary sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a few mentions on web forums or things like presenter bios, but nothing substantial and independent. Most of the results are about garden parties in general. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created if desired. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palombia[edit]

Palombia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A location from a notable comic book series, but it is not notable enough on its own to have its own page, making it a textbook case of WP:NOTINHERITED in my opinion. Every last reference is from websites created by the creators of said comic book series. I propose deleting this page and changing it to a redirect to Spirou & Fantasio. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 22:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 100% WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:NFICTION. My only concern is that this is what WP:PROD is for (when it is not abused by inclusionists).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:NFICTION. Not notable enough to have its own page as there are no sources to verify its own notability. Jontesta (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TamilMirchi (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Konjam Konjam[edit]

Konjam Konjam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

One film review is not enough for an article (New Indian Express). TamilMirchi (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has reliable sources coverage such as this film review here and there should be more online and offline such as printed Tamil film magazines, do you consult them ? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quick search seems to indicate its a legit film, plus reviews cited above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: seems to pass the GNG. Not all sources need to be English. --Slashme (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are now two reviews. Kindly speedy keep this article. TamilMirchi (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, TamilMirchi, seeing as you are the creator of this AfD, and there are no delete votes, you can withdraw your nomination and close this yourself. Thanks. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kajagoogoo. Nothing sourced to merge. A bold redirect is an appropriate alternative to deletion. It only needs discussion/consensus if it's challenged. So while, yes, this should have went to proposed merger talk page discussion instead of AfD, it's moot because the actual violation of procedure was reverting the redirect without any opposition to warrant the discussion. Trouts all around. czar 01:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Askew[edit]

Steve Askew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability outside of band, a search only reveals sources relating to Kajagoogoo. Normally musicians without individual notability are redirected to band per WP:NBAND, but this redirect has been challenged, therefore I'm starting this AfD to get the opinions of the wider community. Hzh (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Kajagoogoo: Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A search of Google, JSTOR, ProQuest and UK newspaper only returned mentions in relation to the band. Search of UK Charts in WP:GOODCHARTS did not return results. As nominator points out, WP:SUBNOT says, "material about individual members of a musical group are normally merged into larger articles about the group." Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kajagoogoo per WP:SUBNOT. I would have said merge, but seeing as the content is entirely unsourced it would require someone to first find appropriate sources for the WP:FANCRUFT. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why was this brought to AfD rather than requesting a merger? Surely we don't want a redlink created here. Chubbles (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard procedure for articles that have show no notability. AfD allows editors to decide whether such articles be deleted, redirected, merged, or indeed kept. Wider range of options, also generally attracts more participants, therefore preferable. Also pointless to only discuss merging content that is completely unsourced given that unsourced content can be deleted in any article. Hzh (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd argue that's an abuse of process; it's scope creep for AfD when we have other processes specifically set up for them. This process is set up to decide whether things should be redlinks or not, and this title clearly should not be. I suppose it's moot now that the proceedings are happening, but it's unfortunate to see so many things that really shouldn't be at AfD cropping up at AfD. Chubbles (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All this shows that is that some editors think that their pet subjects deserve to have articles when they may not. There are many notability guidelines on whether a topic should have its own article, and rules and guidelines also exist on sourcing of content, particularly for biography of a living person. Such policy (WP:V) and guidelines (WP:N) are central to the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia with verifiable content on subjects of significance, and some editors appear to think that their own interest on a subject trumps such well-established policy and guidelines. Well, they are wrong. Hzh (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentum ad hominem, here. You'll note that I haven't voted "keep", since I am not myself convinced Askew merits his own article. The rest of the comment didn't address any of my argument, but it doesn't need to; it's irrelevant to the outcome of this deletion discussion (and I am not particularly interested in continuing it elsewhere). Chubbles (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic to claim argumentum ad hominem when you were the one who accuse me of misuse of process when it is in fact the standard procedure based on well-established policy and guidelines. Hzh (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sufficient notability demonstrated, though some cleanup would benefit the article. Tone 21:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Kennard[edit]

Georgina Kennard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources, and the article therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. She is mentioned only in passing as a friend of Queen Elizabeth (and a rumored love interest of Prince Philip). The one article that is about her, by the Evening Standard, is all about her familial connections. I do not see why Wikipedia should cover this topic. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In aristocratic systems, familial connections create notable social positions. Her position has led to her being mentioned and profiled in the press and in books about royalty, as well as images of her being held in national collections. Wikipedia should cover this topic because anybody coming across such a mention or image (or writing such a book) might very well want to look her up to find out more about who she was and how she was connected. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please point to the press articles and books in which she has been profiled? I do not think merely being mentioned counts as significant coverage. Neither does appearing in a series of family portraits. The coverage should be proven, not just asserted. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She was profiled in the London Evening Standard. You said so yourself. You don't think that counts, because the journalist goes into her family connections, but those family connections are precisely what the publisher of the WP:RS thought made her worth covering, and if a reliable source thinks she's worth covering then we should include her and explain why. That's how WP:GNG works. If there's a country in which snail racing is national news, then snail racing is notable in that country, however stupid we may think it. We don't get to say "even if it's national news, snail racing doesn't count as notable". The same goes for aristocratic connections. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And for an example of a book, the first hit on Google Books is one written by Raleigh Trevelyan and published by Faber and Faber that gives a lot more information about her [1], so you know, we're not looking at dodgy genealogy websites here. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Evening Standard profile is certainly significant coverage. I'm not able to see the contents of the book Andreas Philopater mentioned. Could you perhaps share a brief extract or describe its coverage of the subject? pburka (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try clicking on this link and searching for "Gina". The book is about her family, and describes her background, education, courtship and marriage. But as I say, that is only the first hit on Google Books, where you should also be able to find a number of other books that quote her as an authority on the family life of the royal family. I would guess WP:BEFORE was complicated by searching for her as "Kennard", a name she only acquired late in life through her second marriage. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be geofenced. Google won't show me anything inside that book. pburka (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can at least see the title (it is already cited in the article) and you now have some idea of the contents. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We should keep this. She's been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, so she passes WP:BASIC. NOTINHERITED doesn't apply, but the genealogical data should be rewritten as prose. pburka (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This article is a genealogical record and Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject that cover anything about the subject directly and indepth. Being related to a public figure is not notable WP:INVALIDBIO WP:NOTINHERITED. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."   // Timothy :: talk  01:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There are plenty of sources out there that treat her as notable beyond the newspaper profile and the book both already cited in the article. Nobody is saying she is notable because she can be connected to notable people (what NOTINHERITED is actually about): she is notable because she literally inherited a notable position in society because of how aristocracies work (which has nothing whatsoever to do with NOTINHERITED, it is inheritance in a very different sense). Wikipedia is NOTGENEALOGY, but genealogy is key to how a hereditary aristocracy functions, and so is relevant to her position in such a social system. Again, it is her position in that social system ("one of the best connected women in the country"), not whether or how she inherited it, that makes her notable in the WP sense. Apart from (or on top of) her own position in the social nexus of aristocracy, she is widely quoted as someone giving insight into royal family life (in books about Charles and Camila, Diana, Elizabeth and Philip, no doubt soon about her godson Andrew if there's anything remotely relevant on file, as well as things like this in the Daily Telegraph) so she is someone that people might want to look up to find out more about, and that very much does make her "suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The users in favor of deletion have three arguments: that notability is not established per the WP:GNG, that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and that deletion is warranted per WP:NOTGENEOLOGY. The NOTINHERITED argument is unconvincing, as she is notable as an aristocrat- and inheriting that position does not disqualify her from having an article. It's like saying Queen Elizabeth II is not notable because even though she is a well-known queen, her position was inherited. NOTGENENEOLOGY is also unconvincing, as the article has some information that is not genealogical (although it could use cleanup). Finally, WP:GNG is met because there is significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, namely the Evening Standard piece and the book referenced above. Because notability is met and no WP:NOT arguments apply, the article should be kept. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the article creator feeling otherwise, there is clear consensus that WP:NPOL and WP:GNG are not met. Can be revisited after the election, though there's some disagreement about whether county judge meets NPOL. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Brown (politician)[edit]

Andy Brown (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a candidate for county judge and fails WP:GNG as the subject is not notable outside of his current campaign. References include Facebook and FamilySearch results. GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He has been reported by several other places. www.newspapers.com/search/#query=Andy+Brown&offset=1&s_place=Austin%2C+Texas Cladeal832 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His candidacy is not the sole reason for this article and Facebook Live and California Birth Index are used as sources nor are they the sole sources for this article either. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet WP:NPOL, and the only sources are either not reliable or consist of routine coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But neither of Kinu's points are true. The sources are reliable and accurate. He has been covered multiple times by local news. It's makes no sense to delete this just because it's not yet November. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Kinu is very much correct. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, unless candidates are considered non-notable unless they have received an inordinate amount of national news coverage (ie: Christine O'Donnell) and technically speaking county-level officials are not guaranteed notability under WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. The standard was not solely national coverage, but for a politician is also local coverage and he has been written up multiple times outside of this specific campaign. He could be consider notable for his role in multiple community leadership roles outside of this campaign, which nobody expects him to lose. Not typing that as an endorsement, but it just seems silly to delete the article and then bring it back in November since the Travis County has elected a non-Democrat as Country Judge since... ever. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not pass WP:NPOL as a candidate for a county judge. The position the subject is running for is likely not a position that would make the individual notable even if they are elected. --Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just having a smattering of local coverage in one's own local media is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass the actual notability standards for the person's actual field of employment — if that were how it worked, we would always have to keep an article about every single candidate for any elected office, municipal councillors, smalltown mayors, local restaurateurs, presidents of elementary school parent-teacher associations and high school student councils, every kid who ever tried out for his high school basketball team despite having missing fingers, every band that ever won a high school battle of the bands competition, and my mother's neighbour who got into the papers a few years back for finding a pig in her front yard. Rather, at this level of significance, the notability test he would have to pass is having nationalizing coverage indicating that he's much more notable than the norm for this — and even if he wins the election in the end, the county judge level still isn't an instant free pass over WP:NPOL that would guarantee him an article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again these are straw men arguments since the one and only reason there is this article isn't that he's a candidate for public office. These are silly arguments. Again the policy of deleting articles aren't the most vote, but trying to create. When there are articles on each and every candidate for any and all elected office, then debate them those, this is specially about on single article. When there is an article about your mother's neighbor and a pig, then debate that article. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You keep saying things like "the one and only reason there is this article isn't that he's a candidate for public office," but you have yet to provide support for that claim. Please indicate which sources, if any, are not mere routine coverage about his candidacy, but instead can be used to show how WP:GNG or any specific notability criterion (e.g., WP:NPOL) is met, because I'm not finding any. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you read the article. Only one source is about his candidacy for County Judge. Again how am I suppose to response to your characterizations that you assert. Why say every and all articles and sources are just routine without anything to back it up beyond your assumptions that it must be. The standard is not if you personally find a person notable or not. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of the references, as they are numbered now, #2 is "Andy Brown wins Democratic nomination for Travis County judge." #3 is titled "Brown Makes It Official: Former Dem County Chair Announces Run for Judge." #4 is paywalled, but it looks like a list of people that are running for some sort of election. #6 is a duplicate of #2. So, yes, every potentially reliable source (#1 and #5 clearly do not fall into that category) that you have provided in the article (as you have provided no sources here, again, despite your claims), is by definition routine coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, you are changing the standard. It is just coverage of this current campaign is just one and pointed out several articles from newspaper archives that are unrelated to running for an office in a previous post. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have not provided any additional references in this discussion. The only link you've provided is a vague paywalled search that claims "89,891 Matches for Andy Brown in Austin, Texas." Right. I do not know if you are being intentionally disingenuous, but at this point, until you actually provide something worth discussing, I see no reason to change my !vote or to engage in this discussion further. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an unelected county judge. Even if he were elected, county judge is not the level of position that makes one default notable. This is basically the county executive, and we have decided that no one is default notable for this level of position. The current article is basically just a campaign brochure in our space which is not the function of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as others have said currently fails WP:POLITICIAN and even if he succeeds still fails it as a county judge is not notable. Would need to have something else happen to make them notable, as currently they're just a failed political candidate who is in an election, like thousands of other non-notables worldwide. Canterbury Tail talk 19:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He seems notable enough to somehow get half a dozen people to oddly weigh in on this one small article. Plenty of less notable people in politics have articles with way less information. I have several reliable sources for this article. I personally don't find him notable seems particularly compelling. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guidelineCladeal832 (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Plenty of people read through the AfD lists, nothing unusual about that. And if you don't find him notable, as you just mentioned above, and that's compelling, then why are you arguing he's notable? Canterbury Tail talk 01:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing odd about established editors who actively participate in deletion discussions doing so here. See WP:AGF and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • County Judges in Texas are more equivalent to mayors and quoting Wikipedia, Mayors: Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville" The article shows than that and Travis County has a population of one million people so it's not an small town. It's silly to delete this article before November.Cladeal832 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Says who? Who says, in reliable sources, that a judge in Texas is equivalent to a mayor of a major city? If you have reliable sources and wish to overturn accepted guidelines, then I suggest you take it to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) and make your case there. However until that is changed people will continue to make their comments and recommendations based on Wikipedia guidelines as they are now, not as you would like it to be. Canterbury Tail talk 01:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean I agree that this should be deleted as it's probably WP:TOOSOON, but according to the Dallas Morning News, “County judge” is the title given to the county’s chief administrator — the top executive. According to the Houston Chronicle, As defined by the Texas Constitution, the leading official in all 254 counties is the "county judge," although it's a term that seems antiquated in urbanized areas where the office functions similarly to that of a city's mayor. According to local Texas TV news station KHOU, Brandon Rottinghaus, a University of Houston political science professor, described a county judge’s role as “the chief executive officer of the county.” ... Instead of running a courtroom, he or she presides over and votes in the county commissioners court. Rottinghaus compared the county judge to a president and the four commissioners to legislators. See also: County judge#Texas. On the other hand, you're right that the position isn't inherently notable. County judges in Texas and mayors need to have "received significant press coverage" to be notable. That's why the Lina Hidalgo, Clay Jenkins, and Ed Emmett articles exist.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Would need significant press coverage to be notable. And that will happen if/when he is elected.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of articles that are just about candidates solely sourced to campaign coverage and haven't gotten anywhere near the flack this article has gotten. Dan Seals (politician). Again, just stating I don't think he's significant enough isn't a reason to delete this article so matter how many users make the same point. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if he isn't notable enough to meet our guidelines that's exactly the reason to delete it. Canterbury Tail talk 00:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Some editors would do well read WP:BLUD. I used to do this, and that essay helped me a lot on dealing with disagreements on Wikipedia.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The only reliable coverage is WP:MILL coverage of a candidacy for an office which doesn't meet WP:NPOL. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources found, kudos to Czar. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Sports Indy Racing[edit]

ABC Sports Indy Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This game fails WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. I tried my best to search through the game magazine archives (even with the alternative ABC Sports Indy Racing: Road to the Indianapolis 500 title), but I only found a promotional short press release/announcement paragraph in PC Action. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. There's a possibility that unknown offline sourcing exists, but we cannot assume such exists at this time. -- ferret (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Was doing some due diligence when closing this discussion and the curiosity got the better of me... Reviews in PC Powerplay, PC Games, and PC Player (much shorter than the others) should be sufficient for the GNG. And here's the PC Action promo blurb mentioned in the nom. Kind of wild to keep this American game based on coverage entirely outside the US but here we are. Courtesy ping @Ferret and Jovanmilic97 czar 02:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar I have no idea how you found PCG and Powerplay reviews since even just searching for "Indy Racing" on archive.org game magazines section just returns me results for Indy Racing 2000 game, good job! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am willing to withdraw this with new sources. I have also managed to find Arizona Republic coverage at [2]. I will also WP:BOLD move the article to Indy Racing (1998 video game), considering "Indy Racing" seems to be the most common name for this title, and all sources are from 1998, which leads me to believe it's not a 1997 video game like the article says. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jovanmilic97: If you're happy I'm happy, withdraw away. -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There appears to be a rough consensus that WP:GNG is met. (non-admin closure) Aasim 17:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Cidre[edit]

Manuel Cidre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article for losing political candidate fails WP:NPOL Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-possibly snowball. El Nuevo Dia-an independent, reliable source, has plenty of articles on him per this^[1] and that is just one source. We might as well nominate Ross Perot. Plus, my eighteen years' work at wikipedia shows one thing: I don't initiate promotional articles.Antonio Androgenous Boy Martin (dime) 00:32, 18 August, 2020 (UTC)
  • A big list of random unsourced awards is absolutely promotional and not appropriate encyclopedic content as if this were his resume. "At the administrative level and as a business and civic leader, he has excelled in" is promotional content. "His commitment to Puerto Rico led him to serve" is promotional content. I see the version as created did not have this but the one I see now is a bad article and the comparison to Perot is risible. Reywas92^Talk 17:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then fix the advertisement sections, but don't delete the article. This guy is on Puerto Rican television from time to time, four years after losing the election. And in the context of Puerto Rico, (where I admit, it doesnt take much to be a big company, economic scale-wise) he is the Ross Perot of Puerto Rican politics; Aka a rich man who ran for the country's top position but as an independent.Antonio The Unusual Martin (aqui) 21:27, 18 August, 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: passes the GNG. Covered in many major newspaper articles. --Slashme (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:POLOUTCOMES indicates that routine local coverage does not necessarily equate to notability. There is always a level of coverage for losing candidates that should not lead to automatic notability for running. Reywas92^Talk 17:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The existence of a smattering of campaign coverage is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to satisfy WP:NPOL — every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be inherently meaningless because nobody would ever actually have to meet it at all anymore. Rather, people who ran for election and lost get into Wikipedia in only one of two ways: either (a) they can demonstrate that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for other reasons independently of the candidacy (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) they can show a depth and range of coverage that marks them out as much more notable than the norm for unelected political candidates, in some way that would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test). Neither of those tests have been passed here, and the article is written much more like a résumé than a proper encyclopedia article — and even people who do pass NPOL by actually holding a notable political office still don't get to keep articles written like résumés. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." WP:SNG says "These are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline. A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article." --Slashme (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've toned down some of the language in the text. Maybe the list of awards can be trimmed? For the rest, it doesn't seem that much like a résumé anymore. --Slashme (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG though article needs work. Just because the article isn't in great shape, doesn't mean it should be deleted. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fred G. Meyer#Philanthropy. (non-admin closure) Aasim 17:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Connectipedia[edit]

Connectipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NORG/WP:NONPROFIT Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Very selective merge (like a sentence) to Fred_G._Meyer#Philanthropy. This is already where Meyer Memorial Trust redirects and there's at least one good source for mentioning this encyclopedia. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? Should we merge a sentence or two then DELETE this, or do you suggest there's sufficient connection for this page's redirect page to be that page? Graywalls (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

merge and then redirect, as we would normally do. I think there’s just barely enough of a connection for a sentence or two to be merged. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Campbell, Duchess of Argyll[edit]

Eleanor Campbell, Duchess of Argyll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article appears to be here solely for the sake of genealogy, which is contrary to WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. I am unable to find any significant coverage that would prove the subject's notability as defined by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. There appears to be in-depth coverage at all. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just being married to a peer is not a defalt sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:NOTGENEOLOGY and WP:NOTINHERITED. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the individual oustide of being in the peerage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EverybodyEdits (talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the Duchess of Argyll is an integral part of the British aristocracy which is still very important even in the 21st century, see Nobility. --Devokewater (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Kumar Sinha[edit]

Arvind Kumar Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

He doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCHESS. He may have been once the best player in state of Bihar, India. But now that state has produced a number of good players including GM Sriram Jha. And neither can his contributions in promoting chess in Bihar or India compared to legacy of someone like Manuel Aaron. Roller26 (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Did some searches across media, and unfortunately nothing turned up that confirms notability. If there are some domain (in this case Chess) specific sources, and someone has access to those, it might be worth searching. But, in its absence, this might have to go. Ktin (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete you need to be a grandmaster for WP:NCHESS to come into play, and there's no substantial coverage of him, just quotes like this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hannan (composer)[edit]

Michael Hannan (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of the article is primarily an academic. Presumably, those who posted and edited the article are associated with the subject.

Whilst the subject is listed primarily as a composer, there are very few citations to support this, nor are there many in the public domain that COULD be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Czaplowski (talk • contribs) 11:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Australian Music Centre lists 100+ compositions by the subject (see here). A google search provides some possible sources for use in the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has an entry in Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, and per shaidar cuebiyar. Also, someone needs to fix this mal-formed nomination. Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Composers and WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above and another, bio and works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  + an exhibition. Can this end soon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no problem here. --Smerus (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not sure what the issue is here. Sourcing seems OK, definitely not bad enough to warrant deletion. Seems to have decent coverage, the burning piano thing seems notable as well. Aza24 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lets look at the nomination. "The subject of the article is primarily an academic." Academics can be notable. "Presumably, those who posted and edited the article are associated with the subject." Looking at the history apart from one declared minor edit the is nothing to associated editing (unlike most of the nominators editing that is clearly connected to the subjects he edits, double standards.) "Whilst the subject is listed primarily as a composer, there are very few citations to support this,". Um? Academic or composer? Few citations in the article of available? Few citations for just composer? How about for academic? "nor are there many in the public domain that COULD be used." What does being in the public domain have anything to do with anything? Almost a speedy keep. Nomination fails to raise any real reason for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per demonstrated encyclopedic relevance. Further, the nominator ought to be slapped with a whale for this edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron William Benjamin[edit]

Aaron William Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable under-19 cricketer, fails WP:CRIN inclusion guidelines. The article verges on self-promotion and makes odd claims, such as playing first-class cricket (he hasn't) and holding some form of fast bowling record for the most wickets in a season – 21 – so he's only 283 behind Tich Freeman! StickyWicket (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable youth cricketer, no sign that he comes close to passing GNG. Spike 'em (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references of Aaron William Benjamin for playing Under 19 cricket is given in the article (ESPN cric info), which was inclusion from BCCI. And 'holding some form of fast bowling record for the most wickets in a season – 21' is been removed due to lack of references. Following links are the proof for playing Under 19 cricket for United Arab Emirates. https://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/1161039.html

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8616/scorecard/1160916/afghanistan-under-19s-vs-united-arab-emirates-under-19s-group-a-asian-cricket-council-under-19s-asia-cup-2018-19

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8616/scorecard/1160920/india-under-19s-vs-united-arab-emirates-under-19s-group-a-asian-cricket-council-under-19s-asia-cup-2018-19 --nmudesk 06:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per above. One of many thousands of youth and development team players in the world that we don't have articles on. This article amounts to a personal vanity blog. Acabashi (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Acabashi Sir, Please note, this is not a personal vanity blog. And also he is not just a youth and development team player. All the authorized references on ESPNcricinfo are included with the permission of International Cricket Council. Please refer the referral links in the article from ESPNcricinfo, Gulf News and Khaleej Times. Also seeking your most valuable guidance to update this article. --nmudesk 12:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment but he is only a youth and development player. He is recorded as playing four under-19 matches for UAE in 2018/19. Not sure what you mean by permission from the ICC, we are an open encyclopedia for cricket, covering the major forms of cricket and those associated with it, or are otherwise historically notable. StickyWicket (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply All these Under 19 cricketers are included in the Wikipedia. Atharva Ankolekar Ravi Bishnoi Priyam Garg

Shubhang Hegde Yashasvi Jaiswal Akash Singh Kartik Tyagi Tilak Varma. Why Aaron William Benjamin is not allowed? ESPNcrickinfo includes the approved profiles or scorecards from ICC or any National Cricket board. --nmudesk 17:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Because they have all played matches which have first-class, List A or Twenty20 status. Or as WP:CRIN says, “has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial secondary source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level”. Matches judged not to have been played at the highest level are here. StickyWicket (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply StickyWicket Sir, Aaron William Benjamin has played three first-class matches in Bukhatir league. The first is against “Noor al Yemen” and the second is against “ANIB on top” and the third is "Defenders CC". UAE development XI vs Noor al Yemen ^[2], UAE development XI vs ANIB on top ^[3] and UAE development vs Defenders cc ^[4]. Hope this helps to improve this article. I request you to kindly suggest improvements with your great experience and expertise in this field. Thanks. --nmudesk 06:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmudesk (talk • contribs)

These are not first-class matches. Spike 'em (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. First-class matches are multi-day (Bukhatir League seems one-day), multi-innings matches. At present only the 12 full members of the ICC have domestic matches with first-class status, the UAE isn't one of these 12. StickyWicket (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And they are not List A games (which would confer CRIN-based notability) either. Spike 'em (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete - it is possible for under-19 cricketers to be notable, but you've got to have multiple in-depth sources and, frankly, be really, really good. He's not in that ball-park. Given the obviously promotional nature of the article, I'd also suggest that there needs to be a really close eye kept on it with the possibility of salting considered. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Blue Square Thing According to you the information on ESPNcricinfo and CricHQ is wrong?

Genuine publications like Gulf News, Khaleej Times are salting? None of the above have suggested any improvements. So according to you information on ESPNcricinfo, Gulf News and Khaleej Times are wrong? I think none on you have visited these reference links. --nmudesk 04:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmudesk (talk • contribs)

• No, you're wrong - I visited every link that's on the page and read everything I could access (the Sunday Times article doesn't seem to be accessible to me). I also checked for other sources first, per WP:BEFORE. I know what I'm doing at AfD: this article is full of puff, many of the sources are press releases reworked as "articles" or are simply passing mentions or scorecards. The player isn't notable yet. One of the sources in The National made me think for a moment, and perhaps if he'd played under-19 world cup cricket or so on I might have considered that the article had some merit. But he hasn't and is a long way off the sort of notability that we should be looking for for an under-19 player. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For additional context see this old AfD. Page and Healy were both miles more notable than this chap. Although perhaps less good at self-promotion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see from cricinfo is that he has played some U19s matches, which are not enough to confer notability. Crichq is a user generated website (anyone can add scorecards on there), and we have had cases before of people linking to made-up matches on there. Even assuming the matches are real, they are not of a high enough standard to confer notability either. At present the subject is nothing more than a promising youth player. If he goes on to play top-level cricket we can revisit the article then. Spike 'em (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Many thanks all legends for spending your valuable time for the conversation. Just wanted to know is there any way to include this page in "Under 19" Emirati Cricketer category?. --nmudesk 05:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmudesk (talk • contribs)

We don't categorize under-19 players. We do nationality of the cricketer, followed by major domestic team or teams played for. Take Shahid Afridi as an example. StickyWicket (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of meeting the GNG, no valid argument to keep the article, and if he fails the altogether-too-loose criteria of WP:CRIN, the subject is far short of anything notable. Ravenswing 04:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no sign that he comes close to passing GNG.--35FD Let's Talk! :) 🍁 12:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fangoria Hall of Fame inductees[edit]

List of Fangoria Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Possible ATD is merge to Fangoria. However, I don't think it is worth adding to the article, or anything other than their website. Not a notable sub-topic, doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LISTN. No evidence of notability and not worth merging. Ajf773 (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The points made around the low quality of sources and lack of in-depth coverage have not successfully been refuted. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SEMrush[edit]

SEMrush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable SEO company. A previous AfD closed as keep as one editor refbombed some sources. But as my analysis shows below, these sources are problematic and not enough to establish notability. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahrefs. Source analysis (numbering according to this version):

1. Alexa listing available for every site
2. WP:TRIVIALly mentions SEMRush twice in a 400+ page book.
3. Another book that trivially mentions SEMRush.
4. Book by a SEO professional. Mentions SEMRush along with many other SEO tools. At the pages, it's more substantive than other books but still trivial imo.
5. Trivial. Listed among many other SEO tools and companies. Most substantive mention is a three sentence paragraph.
6. SEO site, non RS
7. non RS site and interview (not independent)
8. non RS blog on some corporate website
9. WSJ, perhaps the only reliable source used here, but I believe the coverage to be WP: ROUTINE.
10. HuffPost contributers, basically a blog. See WP:RSP listing.
11. press release
12. copied reference, same as No. 9
13. WP:TRIVIAL mention of SEMRush on the last two sentences.
14. Press release
15. Press release
16. Forbes Contributers, basically a blog. See listing just below WP:FORBES
17. SEO website, non RS
18. SEO website, non RS

Out of all sources, the best one is No. 9 (also copied to No. 12) but not to establish notability on itself, and it looks a bit routine too. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The “Wordpress for Dummies” book goes beyond a trivial mention; it includes a decent explanation of what the tool does (just underneath Google.com). Also the book from O’Reilly publisher and the Wall Street Journal article are good sources. The Huffpost article by Robyn D. Shulman and Evening Standard articles are also both valid sources. I’ve added some more sources to the article. The subject seems to be widely covered in SEO books. Pesa881 (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • HuffPost Contributers is basically a blog with no editorial control. (See WP:RSP listing below WP:HUFFPOST). Evening Standard's article is routine coverage of "tech startup" profits and mentions the subject in the last two paragraphs only. These are not valid sources. The books mentions are also trivial. I've outlined these points in the original nomination also. Out of the new sources, only PCMag is substantial. Toronto Sun and CBC also only trivially mention SEMrush. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notable company, having well reputation may pass WP:CORP. But the article content needs some improvement in tone as some cases violate WP:NPV I suppose.--Harryishere (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for UPE. MER-C 08:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Weak keep and stubbify. Ugh. I hate to keep an article on SEO clearly written, either by an affiliate or an paid editor, for the precise purpose of optimizing its own search result. And yet: [3] is a real source. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also [4] in ProPublica uses it as a source. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AleatoryPonderings:, I've addressed both of these sources in the original nomination. WSJ seems to be routine coverage of funding rounds, and ProPublica has a trivial mention of it as a firm. How are they enough to establish notability? TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to weak keep per your note. ProPublica is highly reliable, in my view, so their using it as a source counts in favor of SEMrush's notability. I respectfully disagree on whether the WSJ coverage is routine: it's specifically about SEMrush, not about general trends in venture capital. I also found [5] (from The Australian; paywalled; it also cites SEMrush as a source for traffic data, e.g., "Data collected by SEMrush shows massive increases in visits to leading websites such as liquor specialist Dan Murphy’s") and [6] in the New York Times (interview with one of their staffers, who says he uses SEMrush—indicates that a major newspaper views it as notable enough to cover in a personal tech column). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and update. Once upon a time this was a browser extension and free tool; it is now offered by third parties in the Cloud. They have gone to the SaaS model (google result) and as such, the article needs cleanup and updates. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable software. This article can be pared. Wm335td (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As things stand, this topic is about the *company* and not the software. My opinion is that if the topic was changed to be about the software rather than the company, there are sufficient sources to establish notability of the software. The various Keep !voters above refer to the software. WP:NCORP is the applicable guideline. As things currently stand, the company fails the criteria for establishing notability and I would normally !vote to Delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HighKing: are you sure about that? to me, it looks like the software is even more non-notable. ProPublica, WSJ, and the Times sources pointed out above are all mentions of it as a "search analytics firm", and don't really mention it's SaaS product. I don't see any reliable sources about the SaaS product; the best source for SEMrush SaaS seems to be the NYT blog, and I don't think that contributes to notability, since it's a blog. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • TryKid, for me the real acid test is whether there are any independent reviews of the product that provide in-depth detail. While NCORP is primarily focused on organizations of all types, it is also the applicable guideline for products. There's a good review of the product on page 68 in "Teach Yourself VISUALLY Search Engine Optimization (SEO)" and another good review of the product at page 40 in the book "How To Recognize NEGATIVE SEO ATTACKS: Eliminate Them & Recover From Google Penalties". In addition, there are numerous reviews in various magazines such as PCMag and Tech Radar. That said, I don't see a whole lot in this article that would necessarily make it into an article on the product. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the best sources seem to be blogs and promotionalism , and that isn't good enough. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not seeing the subject passes WP:CORP. Majority of the articles available over the internet are about its product that also promotional contents due to their affiliate marketing program. - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per what the 'keep' votes are suggesting. There are reliable sources covering this, so keep and update would be the best option. Idealigic (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a freelance writer who often writes about marketing topics, I can provide anecdotal data regarding the software's notability. I am being paid to write a review of it right now, most likely for a program affiliate, and I am certainly not the first. However, the software was already familiar to me because I have seen it referenced often in articles about marketing in general. It's definitely possible that those articles were also linked to affiliate campaigns, but that does not change the fact that if it has reached the point where *I* am familiar with the name, then - one way or another - it is definitely notable within the industry. Because I am only on the very fringes of that industry. What I don't know is whether that is only because the affiliate program is so successful, or if the software itself has gotten so much attention because of how good it is. And, of course, anecdote is not data. So, if your definition of notable depends at all on worthiness, then this edit may be completely worthless. If it means well-known, however, then I think you have to accept that anyone with an interest in digital marketing has probably heard of it, if not actually looked into it...which is what I'm doing now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlynnt (talk • contribs) 01:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Tavern (Eagle, Pennsylvania)[edit]

Eagle Tavern (Eagle, Pennsylvania) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It seems to be an old building, but does that make it notable? Fails WP:NBUILD Rusf10 (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in addition to the sources in the article which seems to be a dead link, I was able to dig up [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. You do have to search though. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are all local sources. The WP:AUD requirement for business notability still has not been met.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Philadelphia Inquirer is a major source. Plus I found plenty of sources that used the Eagle Tavern as a local landmark. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a major source or not, is not the point. It is local. There is a difference between a Philadelphia area restaurant get coverage in the Inquirer and a far away restaurant getting coverage in the Inquirer. For our purposes here, the Philadelphia Inquirer is a local source.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe the article has adequate sources. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Given all the "eagles" out there and the somewhat unclear geographic references, I can't tell for sure if either [13] (pp. 28–43; 95–117) or [14] (chaps. 8–10) mention this tavern. I am assuming that this one and the "Spread Eagle" are different, but if they are the same there seems to be some coverage. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to me to be two different Taverns.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Major metropolitan areas are regional, with a wide audience. Coverage in the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News are adequate sources for notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are local sources, see WP:AUD--Rusf10 (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD says "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." It does not define the difference between "local" (one town) and "regional", but I believe that a major metropolitan area counts as "regional". Almost all newspapers are based in a particular place; if the Philadelphia Inquirer, Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times are all "local", then newspapers would contribute very little to notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs thought a letter to the editor in a small local newspaper two towns away from a place proved regional coverage also. While totally ignoring that letters to the editor aren't reliable sources. So, I'd take his opinion about it with a serious grain of salt. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY - Eddy's expansion during the AfD shows we can write an article on this building using proper sources. There is no hard and fast rule over how much the geographical extent of a source contributes to notability. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck Model[edit]

Bismarck Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Merge into Health system.The article does not meet WP:GNG for a stand alone article.   // Timothy :: talk  06:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  06:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why we don't create a good page about Healthcare merging also Beveridge Model into the page Health system? We have some other stuff which is not so long ans can be merged --Sciking (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic seems quite notable. See the scholar links above and WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The information is quality, it's the location I question. I second creator Sciking comment about merging other articles like this into Health system to create one good article instead of many start articles. Health system gets a substantial number of views each month and if the information was added there it would be read more often and be of better use (I base this on the views Beveridge Model receives). This could easily be a WP:GA nomination and work towards WP:FA. I'd suggest changing the redirects so that Health care system is the article name instead of Health system. Kudos to the creator on the article.   // Timothy :: talk  13:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Health system is a very broad topic which will tend to get overrun by tendentious editors trying to score political points about current controversies. It's already over 42K and so should not be overloaded with lots of history. For example, in ancient Babylon, Herodutus records "during the early 4th century BC whilst travelling through Babylon he observed a custom that was prevalent in the area during this time. Those suffering from illness would be laid out in the street in front of their homes so that passers-by could offer their medical advice derived from experience perhaps through hearsay, from having the disease themselves, or from encountering similar symptoms on others." There have been numerous different systems and so an encyclopedic treatment should avoid recentism. Anyway, AfD is not cleanup and so shouldn't be used for such discussions. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Merge to Health_system. This doesn't seem notable enough on it's own to warrant an article. I agree with TimothyBlue that it would be worth mentioning in the article though. While as Andrew says, Wikipedia isn't cleanup, it's also not valid to cite the length of a merge or redirect target as a reason not to do either. Since article length is a different problem from notability, he's the one always going off about how things should be merged. Plus, aren't mutually exclusive anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Length is certainly a valid consideration as WP:MERGE says plainly that "Merging should be avoided if: The resulting article would be too long...". Andrew🐉(talk) 13:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My only issue with the sentence you cited is that "to long" isn't a clear standard and 25 of the article is the references section anyway. Which doesn't count for article length IMO. Plus, someone unilaterally deciding it in an unrelated AfD to justify keeping something isn't really authoritative or meaningful. Maybe it would be if there was at least a discussion about on the articles talk page already or something, but there isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The topic has coverage for example in [15]. We have room for articles about health systems in many countries, and even periods as long as they pass GNG and the coverage here demonstrates this German system can warrant a stand-alone article. PS. Wow, I just realized I actually agreed on something with Andrew. Gotta check the weather report from hell... PPS. I am mildy puzzled there is no de wiki interwiki? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wartburg College. Tone 08:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wartburg College Concert Bands[edit]

Wartburg College Concert Bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Guesswork, promo, and unverifiable material are hallmarks of the page. What little information is sourced is sourced back to self-published sources. Doesn’t pass WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not a musical group per se, it is the history of the band program at a small liberal arts college, and nothing shows this is worth having a stand alone article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to Wartburg_College. Since this seems like a non-notable fork that is just as well mentioned in the article about the college instead of having a standalone article. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Wartburg College as not enough sources for a standalone article but it can be covered there in a reduced fashion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Crowley (soldier)[edit]

Thomas Crowley (soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:N and WP:NBIO (only mentioned in Croatian diaspora websites and receives a passing mention in a single book). Half of it is written in a foreign language. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As the nom notes, the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NSOLDIER (in that major isn't a particularly high rank, and the Order of Petar Zrinski and Fran Krsto Frankopan is not Croatia's highest military award for valour). However, as far as I can tell, the subject meets WP:GNG. In that there is substantial coverage of the subject in relevant news sources. Including three articles in which the subject is the primary subject published by what we state to be Croatia's "leading media" outlet, 24sata. And several about or relating to the subject published in the Večernji list daily. And at least a few pieces broadcast by Croatia's main national (state?) broadcaster Hrvatska radiotelevizija. While some of these Croatian language are at least a little jingoistic, and English language sources thin on the ground, based on a WP:BEFORE review, it seems to me that GNG/SIGCOV is met. Mine is a "keep" recommendation... Guliolopez (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Social Transparency, Rights and Action[edit]

Association for Social Transparency, Rights and Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NORG. Some hits in RS ([16], [17]), but these are in passing. Tagged for notability for 9 years. Current sources are either deadlinks, non-RS, or do not mention the org. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any significant coverage available on Google News. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 20:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Musketeers (1992 film)[edit]

The Three Musketeers (1992 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent reliable sources found during search to establish notability for this direct to video film. Tagged for notability for 7 years Donaldd23 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. lullabying (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leo the Lion: King of the Jungle[edit]

Leo the Lion: King of the Jungle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent reliable sources found during search to establish notability for this direct to video film. Tagged for notability for 7 years Donaldd23 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails Wp:GNG and Wp:NFILM. A search of Google, JSTOR, ProQuest, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic yielded no significant results. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and article has no sources. lullabying (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Red Riding Hood (1995 film)[edit]

Little Red Riding Hood (1995 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent reliable sources found during search to establish notability for this direct to video film. Tagged for notability for 7 years Donaldd23 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. lullabying (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Flake[edit]

Mark Flake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I can't find any coverage at all in reliable sources. Searching on Newspapers.com primarily returned results about a horticulturist of the same name. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found one source, but that's all. Not enough. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is nothing to substantiate the notability of this artist/composer. Fails GNG, BASIC and ARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:N Angryskies (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found some announcements for exhibitions, but no coverage in independent sources. Vexations (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are not actual 3rd-party, secondary indepth reliable sources covering him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Humane Society & SPCA[edit]

Delta Humane Society & SPCA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Organization is not notable. A BEFORE search turned up a few local routine articles (one financial scandal, one please help them, one oh dear they're not getting free pet food anymore) but no real coverage of the organization. An ordinary shelter, but not notable. Normal Op (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY - which is all that this article is after a decade of being in existence - and fails WP:NOTABILITY. William Harristalk 08:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cursory check didn't turn up a notable parent organization to which to merge to. Since it fails NORG, it should be deleted. Graywalls (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, the few press mentions described above fail WP:SIGCOV and I could find nothing else. Cavalryman (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Business & Investment Group S.A.[edit]

Shaheen Business & Investment Group S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable, fails WP:COMPANY --Devokewater@ 15:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of apocalyptic songs[edit]

List of apocalyptic songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List contains unsourced information about songs that are not reliably sourced, original research, and contains indiscriminate information. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Angryjoe1111 (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Angryjoe1111 (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial list - WP:LISTCRUFT. Pahiy (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete self researched, no notability established by RS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, pure listcruft, original research, no sources... This article has been here for WAAAY too long. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Grimsby Town F.C. season[edit]

2011–12 Grimsby Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The club wasn't playing in a professional league during this season which fails WP:NSEASONS. HawkAussie (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Professional club, competing in a League where nearly all were professional, as well as competing in the FA Cup. Hundreds of sources for notability available upon research. See no need to remove when article can be brushed up to to become very informative. Footballgy (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Footballgy: Then why didn't you do that when you helped with the article because as it stands, their is no references to any of the articles and almost all of the previous Afd on National League teams ended in delete. HawkAussie (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have enough free time in my life to commit to editing Wikipedia other than a few token edits here and there, and where I understand articles falling in line with various rules, I also think people are quick to point out and remove informative, relevant and decent articles instead of trying to fix them. If some used their energy and time into fixing rather than deleting it would make Wikipedia a bigger and better place. So on the whole I don't agree with any of your tags to remove any Grimsby Town F.C. seasonal article, but due to my complete lack of commitment these days I haven't got the time or interest to challenge your deleting or improve the articles at this time. Footballgy (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Spiderone 11:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails NSEASONS and GNG. GiantSnowman 14:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Grimsby Town F.C. season[edit]

2013–14 Grimsby Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The club wasn't playing in a professional league during this season which fails WP:NSEASONS. HawkAussie (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Professional club, competing in a League where nearly all were professional, as well as competing in the FA Cup. Hundreds of sources for notability available upon research. See no need to remove when article can be brushed up to to become very informative. Footballgy (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Spiderone 11:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails NSEASONS and GNG. GiantSnowman 14:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, despite the love which went into the article, clear delete. JohnmgKing (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Grimsby Town F.C. season[edit]

2012–13 Grimsby Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The club wasn't playing in a professional league during this season which fails WP:NSEASONS. HawkAussie (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Professional club, competing in a League where nearly all were professional, as well as competing in the FA Cup. Hundreds of sources for notability available upon research. See no need to remove when article can be brushed up to to become very informative. Footballgy (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Spiderone 11:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails NSEASONS and GNG. GiantSnowman 14:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbelina (1992 film)[edit]

Thumbelina (1992 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent reliable sources found during search to establish notability. Tagged for notability for 7 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for same reasons as Snow White. Direct-to-home movie without any real significance. Fails NFILM and GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability here. Balle010 (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for same reasons as the other films from this company - they could be listed on the companies article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White (1995 film)[edit]

Snow White (1995 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent reliable sources found during search to establish notability. Tagged for notability for 7 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - appears to be a non-notable (apparently direct to VHS) version of Snow White. For obvious reasons it's hard to track down sources for a specific version of Snow White, but I am confident enough in saying this does not pass NFILM. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability here. Balle010 (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manidhan Marivittan[edit]

Manidhan Marivittan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent reliable sources found during search to establish notability. Only things found were database sites and youtube videos. Tagged for notability for 4 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no notability here, and the long notability tag suggests further meaningful sources don't exist. Balle010 (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 20:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Except for the soundtrack, no other third-party sources were found. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Jutzi[edit]

Alison Jutzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seriously undersourced BLP about an actress who - per the article - "[...] is most recognizable for her work in commercials for Wiser's, Whiskas, freecreditscore.com, the Drake General Store, Alberta Libraries, Boston Pizza, BMO and more." A search for coverage leads me to believe that the subject clearly fails WP:NACTOR. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I also found [18] and [19], but they do not confer notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass WP:NACTOR. Balle010 (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article doesn't pass WP:NACTOR and may be WP:TOOSOON EverybodyEdits (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The following text was inserted at the top of this discussion by an IP. I am moving it here for better readability. Jutzi has has significant roles in numerous Canadian theatre publications and is very well recognized for screen work, including starring in a commercial that was featured on the Ellen DeGeneres show — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I checked the Romanian royal family article regarding the merge but it seems all key points are already there. Still, ping me to retrieve the history if needed. Tone 13:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Romanian throne[edit]

Line of succession to the former Romanian throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This throne has been defunct since 1947. WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here, including one minor.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 25 lines of successions to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25). TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Without an existing legal framework, presenting what the line of succession would be based on no-longer operative rules as if the monarchy never fell is Alternative history. Agricolae (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Anonimu (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and above comment. Balle010 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article is actually well-sourced and includes a published "line of succession" according to the formerly-royal family (so it is not OR). I think the article also does a reasonable job of clarifying that the monarchy was abolished. There are multiple third-party sources describing the various intra-familial "decrees", so it's not all coming from the family's official website, either. I think this information could be merged into Kingdom_of_Romania#Pretenders_to_the_Romanian_throne, or at least the article moved to a title that reflects the whole of the dispute rather than just the line of succession. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JoelleJay:, or we can merge into article Romanian royal family. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 21:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I note that it actually puts forward two different lines of succession, and to complicate matters further Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern claims to be the rightful head of the House of Romania, and his claim to be a legitimate grandson of King Carol II has been recognised by the courts in some countries. This is a classic example of the sort of dispute which Wikipedia should not be getting involved with. PatGallacher (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is time to drag Wikipedia kicking and screaming into the 21st-century. This is an article that reflects the worldviews of those who reestablished the Ancient Regime and the old order in the Congress of Vienna. Yes I am saying this article reflects the world-view of the 17th century, imposed through actions in the 19th-century. It reflects a view so far out, that you have to peel back through a violent revolution that was so long ago in Romania that a great many of Wikipedia editors were not alive when it happened. A revolution that happened in the year that the largest number of Wikipedia biography subjects were born. As I say, that revolution had no effect of moving the monarchy back. Maybe as an American I think Monarchism is more dead than it is, and I have done more than any editor to include a broad array of 18th-century monarchs, mainly in Africa and Asia, in the various year by year charts of state leaders, a task that requires a lot of thankless hours and a conparison of List of state leaders in 1759 with List of state leaders in 1773 will show it hardly begun. We need to deal with real power in the real world, and displaced monarchical succession is not it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great job, I’m sure the daily average of 0-2 people who view those articles you linked will really appreciate that. - dwc lr (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is a defunct Royal family that will never be on the throne again, this individual has achieved nothing notable. However try living in the UK where they are obsessed by their Royal Family, class system + history.--Devokewater@ 09:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per JoelleJay, succession issues make international news even in The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/11/prince-nicholas-romania-royal-throne-king-michael Don’t get me wrong, despite being well sourced as JoelleJay points out, this article will be deleted and for completely spurious reasons because it’s a pure numbers game. And unfortunately we have a number of Editors who don’t like royal topics and can’t comprehend that other people may find it of use or interest. Unfortunately Wikipedia has fallen victim of the Class Wars, Culture Wars etc of recent times- dwc lr (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I had a look at this article, it flashed up a flag that the article is over 5 years old. It seems that "king" Michael is considering whether to remove his grandson from the line of succession. This is exactly the sort of problem which some people have been flagging up: is the current line of succession of a deposed monarchy determined by the rules at the the time this monarchy was deposed, or can the current supposed monarch change these rules? It is outside the scope of Wikipedia to decide these issues. This point might conceivably be included in an article on these people, but encyclopedic content is more than something a few people might be interested in. PatGallacher (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I should clarify that I think there is a lot of sourced information in the article that belongs somewhere, but the basis of the article shouldn't be just the "current succession" to the throne since that is specifically a Romanian royalist POV and also doesn't reflect the whole situation. I think Norden1990's suggestion of merging the material with the [[Romanian_royal_family#Line_of_Succession_[11]|line of succession]] section of the Romanian royal family article would be a reasonable compromise. JoelleJay (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge some content to Romanian royal family. Such an article can provide a NPOV without implying that there is any prospect of re-accession. In the case of Romania, one of the issues is that the Communists forced the king to abdicate, but is an abdication under duress legitimate? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Balliol abdicated as King of Scotland in 1296 under duress from the English, but nobody believes that we can establish the subsequent level of succession to the Scottish throne. PatGallacher (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, abdication under duress still counts, nor is abdication necessary. If a country abolishes its monarchy through constitutional change, it makes no difference whatsoever whether the former king (or royalty fandom) accede to the altered circumstance or not. Agricolae (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively to Romanian royal family. While the speculative lines of succession aren't encyclopedic, there is a fair bit of sourced content about the current state of the Romanian royal family, perceptions of it, and disputes over succession which would make a reasonable addition to that article. Hut 8.5 10:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Portuguese throne[edit]

Line of succession to the former Portuguese throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This throne has been defunct since 1910. WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 25 lines of successions to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25). TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article has a place in wikipedia. The study of former monarchies and their lines of succession is not something that should just be taken off Wiki because those thrones no longer exist. The portuguese monarchy existed for nearly a thousand years, its mark on Portugal is incalculable and even if a monarch no longer reigns, the house of braganza maintains notability and notoriety in portuguese society and culture. There are plenty of reputable sources relating to the line of succession. Fully against deletion. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the historical impact of the Braganza family, and they and their individual members may well remain notable, but there is no current line of succession because there is no crown to be in order to succeed to. Were this to change, it would be the rules established at that time that would determine the order of succession, which would not necessarily be the same as the prior rules (male-preference primogeniture has been largely abandoned in extant European monarchies, as are the restrictions pertaining to morganatic marriage). If this is presupposed on such a reestablishment, then it is WP:CRYSTAL, otherwise, it is counterfactual. Agricolae (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Without an existing legal framework, presenting what the line of succession would be based on no-longer operative rules as if the monarchy never fell is alternative history. Agricolae (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Even though there haven't been a monarchy in Portugal for 110 years, the former ruling family still exists.

The idea stated in the nomination that there can't be a line of succession, when there isn't an existing monarchy is more or less bogus. It's a private and so far unsourced opinion.

There will in by far the most cases always be a line of succession to a monarchial institution, if that institution was based on the principle of inheriting the tile, unless the family in question has run out of heirs. The assumption that the line of succession to a former throne dosen't exist any more is pretty much an (unsourced) opinion, a private opinion not based in any international rules or resolutions. I can't think of a UN-resolution that mentions anyting about that the line of succession to defunct thrones dosen't exist any more?

We do actually have a number of cases, where referendums have been held about the question whether an abolished monarchy should be restored. If we put the 1947 Spanish referendum aside, because it didn't involve reinstating an actual monarch in the job, then there are at least four known examples of such referendums: 1935 Greek monarchy referendum, 1953 Maldivian constitutional referendum, 1993 Brazilian constitutional referendum & 1997 Albanian monarchy referendum. These referendums would have been meaningless, if the nations where they took place didn't think a) there is actually a former royal family, we can put back on the throne and b) there is a line of succession in that family that determins, who will become monarch and who will become first, second, third and so forth in the line of succession if we the people/nation decides to bring back the monarchy to our country.

I didn't get around having classes in law at university, but I'm pretty confident, that most lawyers would say, that it is/was the latest law of succession from before the monarchy was abolished, that defines the line of succession in that particular royal/princely family. Isn't that just a statement on my behalf? Perhaps, but if we take a look at the historical examples it is evident, that when a republic is abolished and a former monarchy comes into existence once more, then the restored monarchies have had no need for defining who would be the monarch and who would be the heirs in the line of succession once more, they simply followed the laws or rules from the last time, the monarchy had been in function. The examples of this, that I can think of is:

Britain (England and Scotland) 1660

Kingdom of France 1814

French Empire 1852 (though Napoleon III changed the law of succession immediately after he had acceded the throne)

Spain 1874

Greece 1935

Maldives 1953

Of course a restored monarchy can make the choise, that they will follow a new set of rules conserning succession to the throne, but in these cases it's a deliberate choise in the situation. The examples could be Hungary (1920), Spain (1947/1975) and Cambodia (1993).

So the historical evidence strongly points to the conclussion, that lines of successions is maintained within a royal/princely family, even if the family no longer functions as reigning family within an existing independent monarchy.

Of course there will be cases, where a line of succession can't be established - Hungary would make such an example, since the latest Hungarian monarchy (1920-1946) didn't recognice anyone as eligible for being the monarch of the country, and therefore the country didn't have and didn't recognice (while still a monarchy) a particular line of succession.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleryhlolsson (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rules that governed succession to existing monarchies have changed (in some monarchies repeatedly), and there is no reason were Portugal to reestablish a monarchy they would be bound by rules from the early 1900s. Yes, there could hypothetically be a referendum that installed the person legitimists consider to be the heir to the former monarchy as king, but there could just as well be referenda that choose someone other than that legitimate heir. When Spain restored a monarchy in 1975, the person chosen was not the person next in line based on the prior rules of succession. Keeping this page under the supposition that the a country hypothetically restoring a monarchy at some point in the future is in any way bound by the rules that existed more than 100 years ago is simply groundless and subjective. Agricolae (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That there is no line of succession when there is no monarchy isn't an opinion, it's what there being no monarchy means. This is easily demonstrated by asking a simple question: Who succeeded Manuel II of Portugal as King of Portugal when he died in 1932? That's right, nobody did. That's all there is to it. And you also have the WP:BURDEN of proof backwards: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You're the one arguing for the inclusion of material, so you're the one who needs to demonstrate that the line of succession to the defunct throne still exists. Which you can't, because it doesn't.

Your own line of reasoning here acknowledges that this is all hypothetical. In other words, it's speculative, alternative history – real-life fan fiction, if you will. However, Wikipedia is WP:NOTSPECULATION. TompaDompa (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and above comment. Balle010 (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Royalist pretensions in Portugal are not documented by independent reliable sources sufficiently enough that the concept of a "current line of succession" is both verifiable and notable. There would need to be specific third-party news coverage and (ideally) journal articles on a coherent royalist movement with a published line of succession for this to be remotely encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, this is absurd fantasy.Smeat75 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. Donaldd23 (talk)
• Delete The throne has been defunct for over 100 years. It died before WWI. It was not brought back with the end of facsism or any other change. We have an article on the house of Braganza that can say anything needed to be said about the members for the last century. It is time to drag Wikipedia kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and to stop writing it as a wrote of the restorationist legitimacy established in the 1815 Peace Treaty. That is the only way to describe these truly absurd articles that pretend thrones that have been defunt over a century have any meaning at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Pretenders to the throne of Portugal. Alternatively merge to House of Braganza (leaving a redirect). Who are descendants of former royal families is worth having in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable, defunt Royal Family --Devokewater (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is fundamentally speculation, either by us or on the part of whatever source we cite, because in the unlikely event that Portugal decided to restore their monarchy there is no guarantee they would adopt the same rules of succession. There seems to be a dispute about who the rightful successor is anyway. Hut 8.5 10:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Iranian throne[edit]

Line of succession to the former Iranian throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This throne has been defunct since 1979. WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because monarchy doesn't exist anymore. See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are also WP:BLP concerns about the people who are listed here.

So basically, the same reasons as the previous 25 lines of successions to defunct thrones that have been deleted recently (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25). TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Alternative history or WP:CRYSTAL, as there is no existing throne to be in line to succeed to, and no legally-operative rules by which such a line can be determined. Agricolae (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Pahlavi claim seem well sourced, whereas the Qajar claim is in need of citation. Under 'normal' circumstances I would say, that the older dynasty (Qajar) didn't belong in the article, but since not descending from the Qajars is a requirement for being in the line of succession under the Pahlavi claim the comparison is interesting, though I would say, that the numbers listed by the 'Qajar claim' are inappropriate. The idea stated in the nomination that there can't be a line of succession, when there isn't an existing monarchy is more or less bogus. It's a private and so far unsourced opinion.

There will in by far the most cases always be a line of succession to a monarchial institution, if that institution was based on the principle of inheriting the tile, unless the family in question has run out of heirs. The assumption that the line of succession to a former throne dosen't exist any more is pretty much an (unsourced) opinion, a private opinion not based in any international rules or resolutions. I can't think of a UN-resolution that mentions anyting about that the line of succession to defunct thrones dosen't exist any more?

We do actually have a number of cases, where referendums have been held about the question whether an abolished monarchy should be restored. If we put the 1947 Spanish referendum aside, because it didn't involve reinstating an actual monarch in the job, then there are at least four known examples of such referendums: 1935 Greek monarchy referendum, 1953 Maldivian constitutional referendum, 1993 Brazilian constitutional referendum & 1997 Albanian monarchy referendum. These referendums would have been meaningless, if the nations where they took place didn't think a) there is actually a former royal family, we can put back on the throne and b) there is a line of succession in that family that determins, who will become monarch and who will become first, second, third and so forth in the line of succession if we the people/nation decides to bring back the monarchy to our country.

I didn't get around having classes in law at university, but I'm pretty confident, that most lawyers would say, that it is/was the latest law of succession from before the monarchy was abolished, that defines the line of succession in that particular royal/princely family. Isn't that just a statement on my behalf? Perhaps, but if we take a look at the historical examples it is evident, that when a republic is abolished and a former monarchy comes into existence once more, then the restored monarchies have had no need for defining who would be the monarch and who would be the heirs in the line of succession once more, they simply followed the laws or rules from the last time, the monarchy had been in function. The examples of this, that I can think of is:

Britain (England and Scotland) 1660

Kingdom of France 1814

French Empire 1852 (though Napoleon III changed the law of succession immediately after he had acceded the throne)

Spain 1874

Greece 1935

Maldives 1953

Of course a restored monarchy can make the choise, that they will follow a new set of rules conserning succession to the throne, but in these cases it's a deliberate choise in the situation. The examples could be Hungary (1920), Spain (1947/1975) and Cambodia (1993).

So the historical evidence strongly points to the conclussion, that lines of successions is maintained within a royal/princely family, even if the family no longer functions as reigning family within an existing independent monarchy.

Of course there will be cases, where a line of succession can't be established - Hungary would make such an example, since the latest Hungarian monarchy (1920-1946) didn't recognice anyone as eligible for being the monarch of the country, and therefore the country didn't have and didn't recognice (while still a monarchy) a particular line of succession. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rules that governed succession to existing monarchies have changed (in some monarchies repeatedly), and there is no reason were Iran to reestablish a monarchy they would be bound by rules from before the Revolution (and seriously, does anyone really think this is going to happen?). Yes, there could hypothetically be a referendum that installed the person legitimists consider to be the heir to the former monarchy as king, but there could just as well be referenda that choose someone other than that legitimate heir. When Spain restored a monarchy in 1975, the person chosen was not the person next in line based on the prior rules of succession. Keeping this page under the supposition that the a country hypothetically restoring a monarchy at some point in the future is in any way bound by the rules that no longer exist is simply groundless and subjective. Agricolae (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That there is no line of succession when there is no monarchy isn't an opinion, it's what there being no monarchy means. This is easily demonstrated by asking a simple question: Who succeeded Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as Shah of Iran when he died in 1980? That's right, nobody did. That's all there is to it. And you also have the WP:BURDEN of proof backwards: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You're the one arguing for the inclusion of material, so you're the one who needs to demonstrate that the line of succession to the defunct throne still exists. Which you can't, because it doesn't.

Your own line of reasoning here acknowledges that this is all hypothetical. In other words, it's speculative, alternative history – real-life fan fiction, if you will. However, Wikipedia is WP:NOTSPECULATION. TompaDompa (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (EC) Comment. There is only one source for this article that does not come from the Reza Pahlavi website, indicating coverage of the succession conflict is limited to PRIMARY sources. If it is not getting attention from independent RS, then it is not notable and should be deleted. However, in the event that such RS are found, I think it would be better to either merge the content into the Pahlavi dynasty page or refactor and move this article such that it reflects the post-monarchy dynastic dispute as a whole rather than focusing on a hypothetical line of succession. Such an article would need to make clear that this is not an extant monarchy, that any outcome of the dispute would have no effect on Iran's governance, and that the people involved do not legally carry recognized hereditary royal titles (i.e. it should not be written from the POV that current Pahlavis or Qajaris are actually "princes of Iran"). JoelleJay (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since it is perpetuating ideas that have no meaning in the real world. At absolute worst redirect to Pahlevi Dynasty but I do not really see a need for such a redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pahlavi dynasty. I do not think there is anything to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Shah of Iran was only disposed in 1979, with the current situation + happenings in that country it’s probable that the Pahlavi dynasty will become very prominent again. Devokewater (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just monarchical wishful thinking. Further, the last Shah himself was placed on the throne by foreign forces, so it is not like his own reign represented a long line of 'normal' succession. WP:CRYSTAL - We can't base our decision on biased guesses about the future. Agricolae (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is fundamentally unencyclopedic speculation, the line of succession cannot be verified as there are no longer any rules for it. Even if Iran did decide to restore the monarchy there is no guarantee that they would use the same succession rules, indeed this article basically admits that it's likely they would be changed. In any case the article explains that after the current claimant there will be no more claimants under the original succession rules anyway. Hut 8.5 10:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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