Wikipedia:Requests for deletion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
If you think a page should be deleted, read the deletion policy to make sure.
Then follow these instructions on how to request a page for deletion. To find more information on what discussed deletions and quick deletions are:
PLEASE READ THIS

Before nominating: checks and alternatives Edit

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:

A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines
  1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion.
  2. The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
  3. Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines
B. Carry out these checks
  1. Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for quick deletion.
  2. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)
  3. Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
  4. Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
  5. Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
  6. Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede.
C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
  1. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for RfD.
  2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
  3. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to fix it.
  4. If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.
D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
  1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
  2. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an RfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an RfD nomination may still be appropriate.
  3. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}.

Discussed deletionEdit

Put the deletion tag on the article.
  1. Click "Change source" at the top of the page to be deleted.
  2. In the edit box, add this tag: {{rfd|REASON}}. Put it at the top of the page, above the rest of the text. Then, replace the text "REASON" with a short reason why the page should be deleted. Do not be too specific here. You can add more details on the discussion page (see below).
  • It is a good idea to write a change summary to let others know what you are doing. You can say "nominating for deletion", "requesting deletion", or something like that.
  1. Click "Save changes" at the bottom to save the page with the deletion tag at the top.
  • You can also check the "Watch this page" check box to add the page to your watchlist. This lets you know if the page for deletion has been changed. If the deletion tag is removed any time before the discussion is closed, it should be put back.
Create a discussion page.
  1. If the deletion tag has been added to the page, a box should appear at the top of the article with a link saying "Click here to create a discussion page!" Click that link.
  2. You should be taken to a page starting with "Creating Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/..." along with the current year and the name of the article to be deleted. In the edit box, the following tag should have already been added: {{RfD/Preload/Template}} . Replace the text PLACE REASON HERE with a more detailed reason why the page should be deleted.
  • It is helpful to include links to the various policy pages about Wikipedia (that begin with Wikipedia:). Here are some examples of this: "This article is [[Wikipedia:COMPLEX|not easy to understand]]" or "Not a [[Wikipedia:notable|notable]] topic''. This will make others more aware of why the page is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies.
  1. Click "Save changes" to save the new discussion page when you are done.
  • A change summary you can write for this page is "creating discussion page", "starting deletion discussion", or something like that.
  • As with the page for deletion, you can check the "Watch the page" box. This will let you know if someone else has replied to your discussion.
List it here
  1. Copy the title of the discussion page to the clipboard. You can do this by dragging the mouse over the text from "Wikipedia" to the end of the page title to highlight it, then right-clicking and selecting "Copy".
  2. Go to the list of deletion requests, and click "change source" beside the words "Current deletion request discussions".
  3. At the top of the list of discussions, paste the title from the clipboard (right-click and select "Paste"). Add a pair of curly brackets before and after the title to make a template that will copy the content of the discussion page onto the main deletion page, like this:
{{Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/(name of page to be deleted)}}
  1. Finally, click "Save changes" to add the discussion to the list. If the page saves successfully, you should see your deletion discussion at the top of the list. And that's it!

Quick deletionEdit

If you think a page has nonsense content, add {{non}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page does not say why the subject is important, add {{notable}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page should be deleted per other quick deletion rules, add {{QD|reason}} to the top of the page.

Notifying the userEdit

Generally, you should try to be civil and tell the user that created the page to join the discussion talking about the page. This can be done by adding {{subst:RFDNote|page to be deleted}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talkpage.

DiscussionsEdit

  • The discussion is not a vote. Please make suggestions on what action to take, and support your suggestion with reasons.
  • Please look at the article before you make a suggestion. Do not make an opinion using only the information given by the nominator. Looking at the history of the article may help to understand the situation.
  • Please read other comments and suggestions. They may have helpful information.
  • Start your comments or suggestions on a new line. Start with * and sign after your comment by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs and make sure your comment is indented (using more than one *).
  • New users can make suggestions, but their ideas may not be considered, especially if the suggestion seems to be made in bad faith. The opinion of users who had an account before the start of the request may be given more weight or importance.
  • Suggestions by users using "sock puppets" (more than one account belonging to the same person) and IP addresses will not be counted.
  • Please make only one suggestion. If you change your mind, change your first idea instead of adding a new one. The best way to do this is to put <s> before your old idea and </s> after it. For example, if you wanted to delete an article but now think it should be kept, you could put: "Delete Quick keep".
  • If you would like an article to be kept, you can improve the article and try to fix the problems given in the request for deletion. If the reasons given in the nomination are fixed by changing, the nomination can be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an administrator.
  • Try to avoid confusing suggestions, such as delete and merge.

Remember: You do not have to make a suggestion for every nomination. You should think about not making a suggestion if:

  1. A nomination involves a topic that you do not know much about.
  2. Everyone has made the same suggestion and you agree with that suggestion.
  • All times are in UTC.

Current deletion request discussionsEdit

Kiilu NyashaEdit

Kiilu Nyasha (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Operator873 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Difficult to tell if the subject is notable. References provided are fringe at best and not would I'd call reliable. Operator873talkconnect 16:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

The sources provided are two newspaper articles and a nonprofit website. I don't see how those are fringe. DoSazunielle (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Omar Blondin DiopEdit

Omar Blondin Diop (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Operator873 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Does not appear to be notable Operator873talkconnect 15:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

Omar Blondin Diop has been discussed in English and French language media for years. He has also been discussed in academic research. There was an art exhibition about him too. And he has a long Wikipedia page in French. You can see all this by doing a Google search. DoSazunielle (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Seem to have some books covering the subject per frwp. Might be notable, not a french speaker, and can't access the books, but both books have pages that mention them, might be meeting GNG in this sense. We need to see the books though, how in depth is it. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep The French article has references to at least two press articles published on occasion of the 40th anniversary of this death. Non-notable people normally don't receive that kind of attention. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't konw the details, but Jean-Luc Goddard (a frirnd of his, it seems) made a movie about him; there's also one link to what looks like a scientific publication (on history topics), mentioned in the FRWP article. I'd go with a keep (assuming the FRWP article is accurate). --Eptalon (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Brandon Rogers (YouTuber)Edit

Brandon Rogers (YouTuber) (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doubtful notability, having youtube followers is no sign of notability. No refs. Delete? Eptalon (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  • Keep - the content on the EN version of the article shows evidence of having a significant fan following, per NENT. The Streamy Award win is also significant. Notability does not depend on the state of sourcing (or lack of) in our version of the article. Chenzw  Talk  17:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep seems to be notable. Please go through WP:BEFORE in future by looking for sources. The fact that there are no sources in the article is not relevant to notability. --IWI (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 23:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Brock BakerEdit

Brock Baker (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doubtful notabliliy, no references; first google page is essentially social media. Delete? Eptalon (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

This request is due to close on 23:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Prito RezaEdit

Prito Reza (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

আফতাবুজ্জামান has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Fails WP:GNG, written like an advertisement/portfolio. self-promotion. See also en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prito Reza. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

This request is due to close on 22:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Asad Asif KhanEdit

Asad Asif Khan (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Thegooduser has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Some Results came from a Google lookup, but I can't judge if they are RS and I cannot establish the notability from such, so I bring this to RFD Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 21:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  • Closing Admin, Please check the votes carefully. I filed this request about an hour ago during the writing of this message, and I'm already receiving a vote from an IP with their only edits to here. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 22:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep indian web shows several results on Asad Asif Khan, kindly request you to recheck (2401:4900:3684:5C6F:1:2:DDEC:4464 (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC))
  •   Delete - non-notable and likely a promotion. --IWI (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Please help this article modifying by removing the content whichever is like promotion. Yet I request you to consider my request and keep the article. As the athlete has minimal notability. (Emran AlTamimi (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC))
  • Delete - subject's claim of notability is his IBO Oceania title, which fails WP:NBOX (also note that per IBO's EN article, the IBO championship titles are not recognised unanimously in the field). A search does not reveal anything else to support notability. Chenzw  Talk  11:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Chenzw I also found the image used in this article on a website about the boxer, the website says the entire page is copyrighted. So is the picture a copyvio? (Referring to This Website ) --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that is something to be settled at commons. Chenzw  Talk  00:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Chenzw How can I settle that at commons? I have no experience there. --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Nominated for copyvio at commons. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion over the photo. However, you see a minimal notalbility on subject, he is been listed in all the government sports websites and also in boxrec, He has truely worked hard for all of his winnings you can remove the content which you feel looks like promotion and keep it in decent. Officers, Please reconsider.(Emran AlTamimi (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC))


This request is due to close on 21:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


Don't remove this page, I think this artist is famous and also he's work is great! I notice that Suraj Rana is also verfied by Google. This page is very important for which person who search about Suraj Rana on the web.

Suraj RanaEdit

Suraj Rana (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

85.142.210.4 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: full of self promotion, not a single news article, not a single mainstream media coverage, not noticeable personality. 85.142.210.4 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete - full of self promotion, not a single news article, not a single mainstream media coverage, not noticeable personality.85.142.210.4 (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete - likely non-notable, quick-deleted it as A4 ("non-notable") a few days ago. Looking at google: the first two pages of hits are social media sites. --Eptalon (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 04:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

New end date: November 31, 2020 - Was not listed on the RfD page --Eptalon (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


MukEdit

Muk (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Darkfrog24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Little to no content. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  • Muk is a Pokemon, like Pikachu or Meowth. It does appear in the first season of the TV show [1], but it's not a repeat character the way Bulbasaur and Squirtle and even Ghastly are. I don't personally object to the idea of having an article for individual Pokemon so long as they're sourced, but I don't think Simple needs a one-liner on Muk. This article was started October 2, so the drafter either doesn't want to expand it or has been delayed. I have no objection to moving this article to userspace if the drafter wants to work on it some more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Pokémon per precedent at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2009/Category:Pokémon monsters. As far as I know, Muk does not have any particular significance within canon (or IRL). Chenzw  Talk  04:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 03:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

New end date: Nov 2, 2020 - Was not correctly listed on the RfD page. --Eptalon (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


Recently closed deletion discussionsEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   DeleteChenzw  Talk  16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC).

Ali Sarhan ShamranEdit

Ali Sarhan Shamran (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Linkely non-notable; When searching on Google, the first two hits are Wikipedia (since deleted), and a Wikiipedia draft article (also deleted since then). Rest of the first page of hits are social media sites. This is a contested deeltion, so I am bringing it to RfD. I don't see any reason to keep the page though. Thoughts? Eptalon (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete - spam advertising. --IWI (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete and SALT. This page has been deleted three times. Enough is enough. --Lefcentreright (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete and being created crosswiki; maybe it qualifies for speedy? Billinghurst (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 20:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   DeleteChenzw  Talk  16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC).

Honor SocietyEdit

Honor Society (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Camouflaged Mirage has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: QDed for anon with G11, with change summary saying this page exist to promote the society. The G11 is rightfully declined by Chenzw, but the summary is worth exploring. Enwiki has this page en:Honor society but it's a completely different topic, it is stating all the honor society as a global overview, not a specific honor society. The concept might be notable, but individual members aren't always. Seeing the sources, I don't see how it can meet notablity for orgainizations. I would rather this be completely re-written to be similiar to enwp where this particular society is a singular example in the list rather than the entire page. I will caution if you do a BEFORE, there will be a lot of sources, but those mainly point to the concept of Honor Societies as a whole not this particular organization called honor society Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete - I note, with a great deal of irony, that the first cited source in the article is particularly damning where the organisation's legitimacy is concerned. It is not immediately clear whether the Honor Society is actually a non-profit, or even an honor society (lowercase). Chenzw  Talk  16:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete - unless rewritten to reflect the general concept...--Eptalon (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 16:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   DeleteChenzw  Talk  16:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC).

Divyarajsinh JadejaEdit

Divyarajsinh Jadeja (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Chenzw has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: QD A4 originally declined, subject appears to be an unremarkable businessman, apart from unsubstantiated claims of being "a leading name in Gujarat" in multiple press releases. The firm does not appear to meet ORGDEPTH either. Chenzw  Talk  09:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete per nom. --IWI (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete - Wikipedia is for people who are notable. Johannes Kepler claimed that the earth moves around the sun, and not the other way around. In the end there was a lot of talking, and he became notable for this. What we have here is a businessman doing his job. No sign of notabililty.--Eptalon (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 09:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. Also salting the article in light of the vote abuse going on here. Chenzw  Talk  00:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC).

Rodrigo BarbosyEdit

Rodrigo Barbosy (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Operator873 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable. The only references provided are wikinews articles. A quick BEFORE check revealed nothing to support this article. Operator873talkconnect 12:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete Not notable--Saroj Uprety (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete Usually I am an inclusionist (not radical), but in the case of the artist, I tend to agree with the elimination of the article. I don't found reliable and secondary sources with significant coverage about the biographed. ✍️A.WagnerC (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

  •   Keep I do not agree with the deletion of this article, I found sources who believe that this artist is an artist, having to disagree with the elimination of the article because that article is relevant. I found sources and I gradually add them to the article as I check the references about the artist, I noticed that the artist changed his name so this lack of sources is references but they are reliable and have significant coverage in the article by Rodrigo Barbosy, I do not agree to delete this article. ✍️Bot Edguas (talk)

This article must be kept is to be unprotected. 05:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC), I am constantly editing this article and I see that this article is a good article and should be protected from vandalism.

  •   Keep this article must be maintained because it contains references and contains a time that it was included in Wikipedia Simple. ✍️LucasWelew (talk)

article with good references is contains a great article, I see that more wikipedists are interested in Wikipedia simple, so I vote for this article to stay. 05:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC), I see that this article is meeting all the necessary requirements.

  •   Keep This article cannot be deleted, this article contains reasonable references the request for deletion was made when this article had no reference I took a look at the article and took the opportunity to adjust some things that in my opinion were wrong, this article is very interesting and just important believe this article to be useful and educational for people looking for references in the artistic world. ✍️MilenaXenia (talk)

article with good references is contains a great article, I see that more wikipedists are interested in Wikipedia simple, so I vote for this article to stay. 06:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC), This relevant article is well structured with references andthis article should be maintained by means of protection that no vandalism happens the article cited.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   DeleteChenzw  Talk  00:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC).

User:Sabbir Ahmed GourobEdit

User:Sabbir Ahmed Gourob (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Camouflaged Mirage has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Mildly promotional userpage, indef blocked for socking. I don't see the relevance to wikipedia / wikimedia. Possibly qualifies for Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages one day but proposing deletion per en:WP:NOTWEBHOST Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  •   Delete Looks like the user is heading into the wrong path with their userpage --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 23:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete per NOTWEBHOST. --IWI (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete.  --Auntof6 (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

George BecwarEdit

George Becwar (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Gotanda has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Non-notable actor. SEWP is the first search result after IMDB. Roles on IMDB are minor. No news coverage. No reliable source results on a Google search. Some sites seem to be just repackaging of SEWP. Passing mentions as a cast member in articles primarily about Ed Wood. Gotanda (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  • No wp page. 64.39.87.169 (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I dont find much either; he seems to have played in Bride of the Monster (1956), and War of the Colossal Beast/Man (1958), amongst others. The BFI Website lists 7 films in total, all of the 1950s (One without date, one 1960). Bride of the Monster was by Ed Wood, so the movie has a certain notoriety. I'd go with a borderline keep here...--Eptalon (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Eptalon, most of the parts listed on BFI/IMDB seem to be bit parts or unnamed. Bride of the Monster had some notoriety, but I didn't think notability was heritable that way. There is not direct or substantial coverage of Becwar himself is there? --Gotanda (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
      • As I said, I didn't find much; if we can't construct a keep argument, then the article should be deleted. --Eptalon (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete per nom. No indication of notability; google search results pretty much end at IMDb and this SEWP article. --IWI (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 03:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. Note: As is allowed, I ignored the entries from user(s) and IP(s) whose only edits here are on this RFD (and therefore made no edits before the RFD).. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sandesh LamsalEdit

Sandesh Lamsal (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: CV-type article, put up by a single-purpose IP editor (with no other edits on this Wikipedia). Google finds mostly social media and has SEWP on the first page of hits. I cannot judge how reliable or independent the sources are, so put this up for RfD. Comments? Eptalon (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

Note to closing admin: Be sure to properly evaluate the votes of editors with few edits in this Wikipedia --Eptalon (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep - Just checked the links there including the Nepalese links, which I find relevant and independent. The sources like Himalayan times, Kathmandu post, OS Nepal, Himal E News, Celebrity Nepal, IMDb, US Times Now, Daily Hunt, Time Bulletin, Consul Journal, are the independent and very reliable sources. Yes, you are correct, the article is posted by the IP which is new, but it doesn't make sense on the reliability of the article. Even I am new here, and still didn't make any edits, but thinking to start to do soon. Wikipedia encourages the new editors rather I think. So, as an editor who knows NEPALI language, I vote "No" the article should be kept.--NepaliUser007 (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep - Exactly, The articles are from Nepalese, Indian, US and Russian independent sources. There is no point on being all the international sources including IMDb unreliable. Thank you. Due to the fact that even I have edited some parts of this article and included all the reliable and independent references I could find on the internet, I vote it for KEPT - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.142.210.105 (talkcontribs)
      Administrator note: CheckUser strike Operator873talkconnect 14:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep - I would oppose on this deletion as this Wikipedia is a independent source for the independent person, but eptalon kept for deletion without knowing anything about Nepali language and Nepal’s reliable media source. If he can’t judge the reliability and independence of the source then how can he just nominate any page for deletion. If he thinks this page is CV type article, then he could rather edit it and correct than nominating it for deletion. As We know that editors in Wikipedia are requested to edit the articles and make it better than nominating it for deletion according to their personal perception without having knowledge of the reliable source of particular country.2401:4900:33D4:11FC:8D9:E29C:F5FB:AC58 (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
      Administrator note: CheckUser strike Operator873talkconnect 14:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete - self-promotional spam. Not notable. --IWI (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete Most of the sources are unreliable. And I couldn't find anything that would make the person notable in the content or sources. It's a normal person active socially.-BRP ever 11:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep - 1) I think the sources such as Himalayan times, Kathmandu post, Celebrity Nepal, IMDb, Daily Hunt, US times now, Time Bulletin, and Russian journals are reliable.2) For Wikipedia all editors are treated equally I think, but not on the basis of the number of edits they make(Wikipedia Policy)3) Main point is, Person who is socially active is “notable”. And user:BRPever has admitted that this person lives socially active life, and by the articles it seems that this person really is going very good on the social field. + the articles published proves the notability of this particular person. क्षितीज (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC) (User voting multiple times, with different accounts)--Eptalon (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep - Noticeable person with reliable articles. I don’t see any self promotion and spam here. I vote for keep. Thank you
    45.249.84.167 (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Delete Per nom. Couldn't find any substantial/RS that cover the subject either. --Infogapp1 (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


  Keep - Really disappointed to see that my vote for ’keep’ has been striked and it’s written as this is done by author only. But I hope you might have seen my IP Address there. I wonder how such experienced editors can monopolies like this. As a personal, I voted by seeing all those genuine articles by different renowned medias and it’s really sad to see the kind of personal attack here.
Note to closing admin: please consider my points once before taking decision.2401:4900:32AA:AC94:8003:423B:E830:4CD5 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Struck vote. Admitted to being same user as CU striked vote. --IWI (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep Checked Links and article, Looks everything fine and reliable. Yeah, there is problem in English Language, which might be because of the Non English speaking Author, lack of knowledge of Wikipedia page creation guidelines, but it can be fixed by a simple edit and I don’t see any base to delete itSushila Ganesh (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
      Administrator note: CheckUser strike Operator873talkconnect 12:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  •   Keep - I don’t see any self promotion, keep. Thank youHari Prasad1990 (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
      Administrator note: CheckUser strike Operator873talkconnect 12:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 09:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Keep. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Peace TVEdit

Peace TV (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: To me, this looks like at attempt at televangelism. There is an article at EnWP (en:Peace TV). If I believe the article, they are located in Dubai, were founded in the 2000s (2006), and received an award for responsible broadcasting by an UK based Muslim association. If I further read the EnWP article, they were banned in the UK, India and Pakistan for spreading religious hatred / breaching somer broadcasting laws in 2020. The links given in the article are basically dead links /linksd to archive.org.While I am in favor of freedom of speech/freedom of religion; I see very little which would make this article worth keeping: 1) verifying the info will be difficult 2) we are talking about some TV station which is banned in most of the areas it targets. I therefore propose we delete this article. (Note: this also applies to Peace_TV_Urdu. Peace_TV_Bangla and Peace TV Chinese). Thoughts? Eptalon (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  • Keep - the very fact that this TV network has stirred controversy (and banned/voluntarily withdrawn from) in multiple countries is evidence that the network meets GNG. Chenzw  Talk  15:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    Nevertheless we can delete/merge the different language sections; they are likely just other-language versions of the same. Like BBC broadcasting in another language. --Eptalon (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    I agree that the different language versions of the station/network can be merged into the parent article if there is sufficient distinct content. Chenzw  Talk  09:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - This page is not in the worse shape, sure expansion would be nice but I've seen worse, and per Chenzw. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - nothing too much wrong about this page, notable via the many reports and controversies.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 15:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to   Delete. Slight edge to deletion arguments, but there's always deletion review if anyone feels it necessary.. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Neha BaggaEdit

Neha Bagga (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Eptalon has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Indian actress in her late 20s, mostly active on TV (serials). Seems to have won a Golden Petal Award for her role in one of these serials (in 2013). Article cites a number of sources (Deccan Chronicle, News Track, Bollywood Life, IWMBuzz), which need to be cross-checked if they are independent. The article was created by an IP editor, and nominated for QD by another IP editor, but without giving a reason. If I search for her on Google (in Europe), this SEWP article is on the first page of hits. The interwiki linked for EnWP is about the serial she won the award for. So I decided to do a regular RfD, the actress could well be notable in India, or the region which broadcast these serials. Eptalon (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

DiscussionEdit

  • I think this is a borderline one, which I wouldn't be surprised to go either way. There clearly seems to be coverage about the actress, although as you rightly say, determining how reliable that coverage is needs to be done. Looking at a few of the sources, they seem legitimate and independent, so I am wavering towards a weak keep. Would be interested to see what others have to say, and am willing to change my opinion! --Yottie =talk= 19:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, those sources do not strike me as being reliable or independent. A google search did not bring much either, so I would go with delete on this one. --IWI (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - no comment on the reliability (or lack thereof) of the sources. However, majority of the coverage is either (1) non-independent coverage consisting of interviews or (2) about the shows which Neha Bagga was starring in (e.g. casting announcements, plot roundups). If anything, the cited sources are more effective in supporting the notability of the TV series than of the actress. Chenzw  Talk  10:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Now the question is whether Golden Petal Award which this subject won can be deemed as a notable award per en:Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography #1, which Times of India covered as a page, the source per en:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Times_of_India is "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government." (copied from en). So this cannot be fully reliable. Hindustan Times also covered this in depth here and hence, it can be seen that there is some creed of reliablity of this award being a major award as major indian news covered. Hence, the winning of such a award can be seen as ANYBIO #1 marginally. Going to en:WP:ENT #1, we can see that they star in Naye Shaadi Ke Siyape. en:Shaadi_Ke_Siyape seemed to be the same. If we can have a wikipedia page on it, and survived for so long, it doesn't mean the show isn't fully notable, someone can AFD the page, but it can mean that it's sort of notable. Hence, they star in a show that is notable, marginally, #1 is marginally met. With both marginally met, Weak Keep. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 08:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.


Related pagesEdit