Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 20

Guide to deletion

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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 ABS-CBN Christmas Special

2020 ABS-CBN Christmas Special (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. A Christmas special should not have its own article unless it is really notable. Most of the non-notability using own article every year. Per WP:N and WP:GNG because only the evidence are events like election specials and death of Dolphy are passed article in the year, or as an alternative, Countdown to 2016: The GMA New Year Special, is the redirect that I created that mentions to a section, with two reliable sources. Chompy Ace 23:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 23:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 23:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 23:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of ABS-CBN specials aired#Christmas specials. — Emperork 🐋🐰 00:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of ABS-CBN specials aired#Christmas specials per nom. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• You could argue this year was notable as the ABS-CBN Christmas Special did not air at ABS-CBN... Howard the Duck (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of ABS-CBN specials aired#Christmas specials per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of ABS-CBN specials aired#Christmas specials per nom. Kirito (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of ABS-CBN specials aired#Christmas specials per nom. Jayjay2020 (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

The result was no consensus. Editors were split between deletion (largely based on COI concerns and a lack of independent sources), merge (with largely the same rationale as the delete !voters) and keeping (on the basis that a government agency is likely to be notable). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Nuclear Power Plants Authority

Nuclear Power Plants Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

1. Looks like an advertisement, not encyclopedic article. 2. The notability is not shown, no independent RS. Wikisaurus (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Article was created by editor who has a COI with the authority. Most likely intended as an advertisement. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per above. jp×g 12:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  

I have improved the article In addition to some sources,the article is about a governmental body. I belong to this body and I have been assigned to write an article about it on Wikipedia.
thanks--Fatma el shafie (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, @Fatma el shafie:, thank you for adding some sources to the article.

• First of all if you are associated with The Nuclear Power Plants Authority you have a conflict of interest with the subject. It is advised that you do not edit the article directly, and instead request edits through the talk page. Please have a read of WP:COI. Furthermore if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia or are editing as part of your job you will need to make a paid editor disclosure, please read WP:PAID. If you have any questions or issues with this you can ask for help at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard.
• Secondly, it appears that the text of the article has been copied from the Nuclear Power Plants Authority website, this could present problems with Copyright, Unless the text is available under a licence that is compatible with Wikipedia. Even if it is available under a compatible licence it is generally not a good idea to copy text directly into Wikipedia as it is not written in the correct form to be a page on the encyclopaedia.
• Finally in order for the Nuclear Power Plants Authority to qualify for an article the sourcing would have to show that the topic meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. These require that the organisation has had "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Looking at the references you have added:

1. Does not mention the NPPA, is an article about a power plant
2. Is a list of projects, I can't see anything in there that is relevant to the NPPA, could you link the specific project?
3. Does not mention the NPPA, is an article about a power plant
4. Is primarily about a power plant, with the NPPA given a trivial mention as the operator
5. You cannot reference Wikipedia within Wikipedia, see WP:CIRCULAR
6. Is about a power plant, the source does not mention the NPPA
7. Is a company listing, which verifies the existence of the NPPA but does not show notability
8. Is a tag on a news website which turns up 3 articles, most of which are routine coverage or trivial mentions, Is there a specific article you had in mind? While there is some coverage there, I'm not seeing enough for a standalone article.

As I said in my first comment there absolutely should be a section on the NPPA in the article Nuclear program of Egypt, but I'm not currently seeing enough stand alone notability for a separate article, and the current content of the article is both in the wrong format and may have copyright issues.

I hope this helps 192.76.8.81 (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect with a very selective merge to Nuclear program of Egypt, with which I will help. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  
• There are some new resources I will include here to see if they work or not before putting them in the main article
  

NPPA mean Nuclear Power Plants Authority ,It is an economic governmental body based in Egypt And the site of its establishment in El-Dabaa--Fatma el shafie (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

My opinion for a merge/redirect has not changed. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Very selectively Merge with Nuclear program of Egypt: but DO NOT leave a redirect. This article creates an unnecessary WP:CFORK split and it does not meet the criteria for a summary spin off. The name is far to generic for a redirect to a specific article.   // Timothy :: talk  18:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  Why not leave a redirect? By simply clicking on the words "books" and "scholar" at the top of this discussion I can see loads of references to the article subject, but none to any other authority with this name. How, then, is this name in any way at all generic, let alone far too generic? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• I add some references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatma el shafie (talk • contribs) 11:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• I don't think this article should be deleted, and for the creator: you might want to add NPPA's official website for citation and other usage. (https://nppa.gov.eg/en/about-us/) This is a governmental autority article that could later on be used as a reference in articles like Nuclear power in Egypt or El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant for example. comment added by Ziad Rashad — Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I see a few more sources, but very large blocs of text (as of this timestamp) remain unsourced. Either it needs to be stubified or merged. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• It needs a lot of work, but government agencies are generally notable. Not a good idea to delete or merge it. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Content is irrelevant at AfD. A redirect to the Ministry of Electricity and Renewable Energy (Egypt) might be appropriate (but AfD is not necessary for that). However, the NPPA seems to be notable in its own right, simple searching turns up multiple items, am leaning towards keep...--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is the charm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Agreed as per Rathfelder, deletion is not necessary. Government agencies are usually notable. The article can be kept by cleaning up as per sourcing for now. Editors from WP:EGYPT and WP:Energy may be requested to improve the article. USaamo ^(t@lk) 11:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Rathfelder and USaamo.VR _talk 02:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Going with the deletes here. The keeps didn't really show a consensus in why we should keep this and things like "looks good to me" and "notable historic events" etc, isn't the reason to keep the article (besides, did anyone read the article, LOL) - it's if it meets our inclusion guidelines. And I see a lot of people basing sourcing on known genocide deniers, that's not enough or even makes sense. We already have an article about Armenian genocide denial and related subjects. Please take any discussions to appropriate talk pages. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Historiography of the Armenian Genocide

Historiography of the Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Essentially everything on this article is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Everyone who says it was a genocide is an Armenian nationalist, discredited Turkish sources and genocide deniers like Shaw and McCarthy are portrayed as legitimate sources, and "the west" has been brainwashed by these Armenian nationalists.

Most citations are of a paper written by David Gutman (on which 4/6 sources are by genocide deniers and there is a section titled "Countering the Genocide Narrative") and a book by Gwynne Dyer, who is an open genocide denier. --Steverci (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Steverci (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep all seems fine to me. Mccapra (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a POV FORK to me.★Trekker (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

FORK of what? Mccapra (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Opinions of genocide deniers.★Trekker (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This AfD nom is a POV response by one editor to a POV article by another. Which POV is more 'correct', and whether two wrongs make a right, I don't know, and it's not something I particularly want to wade into. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Adhering to the guidelines is POV? --Steverci (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep I don't think this article needed to be created, the subject could have been covered in the main Armenian Genocide article; not as extensively as here, but then this is IMO too extensive for the subject, anyway. But now that the article exists, I don't see a compelling reason to delete it - even if it were condensed and merged into the main article, the POV would need to be edited out, so might as well keep this article and edit it out. Until then, appropriate health warning tags need to be added. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This article serves no purpose other than to host genocidal denial that would've been deleted on the main genocide article, for being views only held by a discredited few. --Steverci (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently genocide-denial'y in the article name "Historiography of the Armenian Genocide", and content under that title could (in theory, at least) be written in any manner, including neutral. Therefore yours seems to me an argument for de-POV'ing the article, rather than necessarily deleting it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The article premise is trying to portray genocide deniers as having equal credibility to real historians. It's inherently undue and POV, and cannot be salvaged. The whole article is basically a POV fork created and mainly edited by one user, which has gone largely unnoticed, and would've been instantly reverted if the content was put on the Armenian Genocide article. --Steverci (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:UNDUE and WP:POVFORK. This article will literally only serve as a host/means to fuel revisionist genocide denial, and, indeed, to portray genocide deniers as having equal credibility to the majority, real historians. Anyone who has actively worked within the Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkey-Iran-Caucasus topic area knows what I'm talking about. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep -- With the Turks denying that there was a genocide, it is probably better to have an article dealing with the controversy, providing a venue for the deniers to vent their theories, in the hope that the main article can be kept clear of such stuff. This is an article about POVs held about the issue. That is quite different from having an article pushing a controversial POV (which is not allowed). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Peterkingiron: We already have Armenian Genocide denial. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete as a WP:POVFORK that fails to establish that there is a legitimate academic debate sufficiently substantial to warrant an article, rather than an Intelligent Design-style attempt to dress denial up as academic. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Article meets GNG and has SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The article is in rough shape, but this isn't a reason for deletion. Here are a few sources (JSTOR + other journal databases have more): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].   // Timothy :: talk  20:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: Gutman and Dyer are genocide deniers. According to that article by Matossian: "One of the outstanding issues in Armenian Genocide historiography has been the inability of historians to come to a consensus regarding the causes, the aim of the perpetrators, and the process of the genocide...These approaches range from arguing that religion and/or nationalism were the main factors leading to the Armenian Genocide, to the argument that the genocide was a contingent event that took place during World War I, represented by a rapid radicalization of the government’s policy toward the Armenians." This article abuses the definition of historiography to portray the genocide as a debatable subject. While it could be a proper article, it would need to be entirely rewritten from its current state, which is why it should be deleted and then possibly remade. --Steverci (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: seems okay. This request is WP:JDLI. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Surely you can address WP:NPOV concerns better than dismissing them as personal preference? If you think the content is neutral, make an argument to that effect instead. TompaDompa (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep It covers notable historic events. Shadow4dark (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:POVFORK and redirect to Armenian genocide denial. -gtrmp (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is definitely important. The article is badly written though, and should be overhauled to better reflect the historical debate. T8612 (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Can be covered in Armenian Genocide Denial--Addictedtohistory (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Addictedtohistory, so, you're not in favour of deleting, but merging? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Not merging, but using it to as example to enrich the Armenian Genocide Denial article Addictedtohistory (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Per Addictedtohistory and LouisAragon. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete WP:POVSPLIT of Armenian Genocide denial. Any useful content could be added to the main article and its relevant sections. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per LouisArago. Can be redirected to Armenian Genocide denial as well. Eurofan88 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep The topic is a notable one, and in my opinion it isn't bad enough for TNT. The article needs substantial overhaul for NPOV, to indicate the relative acceptance (or lack thereof) of different views, and emphasize that the main debates in recent scholarship are not over whether a genocide happened, but the details of how and why. (t · c) buidhe 11:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The article would need to be rewritten entirely to be about the details of how and why, which is why it's best to delete this one and then someone who is interested can then recreate it properly. --Steverci (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

For decades, there *was* a noteworthy debate as to whether there was a genocide. The article needs to state more clearly that the debate is pretty much over, and cover other aspects of the historiography, but not delete everything having to do with superseded or rejected views. (t · c) buidhe 14:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

For decades, there *was* a noteworthy debate as to whether there was a genocide. ...No, there never was. --Steverci (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

See the quote from Taner Akcam in the sources I cited. (t · c) buidhe 05:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Going by a translation, it sounds like he's talking about the academic world for any subject in general. Certainly wasn't true for the Armenian Genocide in 2010. --Steverci (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Draftify or userfy. What seems clear is that this topic is notable and distinct from the main topics about the genocide and its denial, but that writing about it competently needs exceptional care and skill. In this topic area, a poor article is worse than having no article at all. I know too little about the topic to determine the merits of the present content, but I'm following a simple rule of mine: the article contains Incorrectly Capitalized Section Titles, which indicates that whoever wrote it isn't an experienced Wikipedian, which means that the quality of the content is likely poor. The article should be draftified and only restored after review by qualified editors at WP:AFC. Sandstein 15:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Nom seems to have a chip on his shoulder. Article seems fine, if controversial. Well established event, well-cited article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Even other users voting to keep it agree it's both poorly written and cited. If you decide to actually read the article, you should also take the time to read WP:AGF. --Steverci (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The event is well-established, but we have the article Armenian Genocide for that; moreover, as pointed out above, having footnotes is not the same thing as being well-cited. XOR'easter (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: Much like with some other famous 20th century genocides, the historiography of the genocide is at least as noteworthy as the genocide itself. ImTheIP (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The historiography is noteworthy, but because it is part of a denialist effort, meaning that coverage of it belongs at Armenian_Genocide_denial#Denialism_in_academia. XOR'easter (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete or follow the arguments brought forward by Sandstein and draftify. The article is a mess and if it should exist it should be similar to Functionalism–intentionalism debate which remains the redirect for "Historygraphy of the Holocaust". In summary this should be a serious academic discussion in regards to the historiography, not a validation of denial on a equal term as the academic debate. CutieyKing (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom, Addictedtohistory and LouisAragon. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan. Consensus has tended towards deletion after relisting; however the arguments that redirecting would be a suitable compromise were not explicitly refuted, so I am going with that as a compromise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway)

M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Yes, I'm aware this is likely to be a controversial nomination, as the subject is a GA. And yes, WP:GEOROAD does say state and provincial highways are typically notable. However, typically is not the same as always, and I'm thinking this may be an exception. As brought up in the still-unresolved GAR, all of the sources are maps. WP:NGEO explicitly states This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject.. While I was involved with the GAR, I conducted a search for coverage outside of the maps, and was only able to come up with this, which likely fails WP:SPS. I'm not seeing any way that WP:GNG is met, and I feel like since WP:GEOROAD only typically gives notability to these things, I don't think this one is notable. Given that this is liable to be a controversial nomination, given the GA status and all, let's please keep this civil and avoid any kneejerk !votes. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• One of the Five Pillars is "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (emphasis mine). A gazetteer includes lists of state roads. Also it is long-established rock-solid consensus that - despite the "typically" weasel wording of GEOROAD, which is contradicted by the next segment which establishes that only secondary (i.e. in this context, County) roads require secondary sources - all federal and state numbered routes are notable because, and only because, they are federal and state routes. That said there is no reason this cannot become a redirect for now to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan (presumably with an anchor placed for a direct #M-144 piping) without prejudice to restoration if and when additional sources (any additional sources) can be found. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep—per WP:5P, Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer, and gazetteers cover roads. Deleting this article would open a hole in Wikipedia's coverage of the State Trunkline Highway System in Michigan. Now the nominator takes issue with the fact that the sources for the article are maps. There are over 10,000 American highway articles on Wikipedia, most of which use maps as sources. A significant number of those articles are Featured or Good. Unless we are going to revisit the existence of those thousands of articles, I see no reason to delete this one. Imzadi 1979 → 06:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep Political rhetoric and conspiracy theories about maps and map sourcing aside (see Talk:M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway)/GA2) - the state highway system is notable and this discusses a component of it. But due to the size of the article I could see it being merged somewhere else (as I would probably have done if I was the author). --Rschen7754 07:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect per The Bushranger. I concur with everything he says above. I believe there is only so much you can say about a highway of this length that was only around for two years. Would an entry on List of state trunkline highways in Michigan convey any less information than is given in this article? Right now, no. –Fredddie™ 08:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Since The Bushranger changed his !vote, I just wanted to say that I am maintaining my !vote to redirect without prejudice. –Fredddie™ 03:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as separate article or Merge to a new List of former Michigan state highways that can be a WP:USRD/RCS style article for former state highways in Michigan with little to say about them similar to the List of former Maryland state highways family of articles. Dough4872 13:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. As several people before me have said, comprehensive coverage of state highway systems is an important part of Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer, and that includes covering minor and short-lived highways. I also don't see an issue with using maps as sources; unlike, say, satellite imagery, maps are curated and choose which roads and places to include and to highlight as more or less significant, and part of the reason that we treat state and federal highways as notable is that maps treat them as more significant. That being said, for roads like this where there's not a lot to say about them, I don't know that we have to cover them in their own article. I like the idea of creating a List of former Michigan state highways for roads like this - there are a few other former Michigan highway articles among the shortest GAs which might work better in a list like that as well. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect There is no basis for automatic notability for a 0.388-mile stretch of road that had a particular name for a mere two years. What an embarassment. Even if this were still a highway today it's not notable. It's absolutely appalling that anyone would consider nothing but the Rand McNally atlas sufficient for notability, and if there are countless articles like this, yes they need to be revisited too. Wikipedia " combining features of...gazetteers" does not mean that anything that appears on a map is automatically notable, and this article is a massive violation of of guidelines that expect a modicum of significant coverage, and the keep votes have no basis in policy whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • You've just demonstated you have a complete misunderstanding of how road notability works on Wikipedia. The "particular name" was designated as part of a second-level political subdivision's primary highway system; any road today would be absolutely notable. Please re-read the notability standards for numbered highways before opining on them further. Also your claiming that others are saying "anything that appears on a map is automatically notable" is a very disingious case of putting words in other editors' mouths that are not remotely what they said or implied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:GNG before opining further. You are implying that because state government of Michigan built this road and it appears on maps, it's automatically notable – screw significant coverage! Screw the concept of notability and the GNG! Maybe Michigan needs a list in Category:Lists of state highways in the United States shorter than one mile for this ridiculousness. Reywas92^Talk 01:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is exactly what I'm outright stating - not "implying" - because it is consenus for federal and state highways (i.e. first- and second-level political subdivisions) that designation of a route = that route is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Except it is consensus that "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the requirement of verifiability." You cannot just pick and choose one part of this guideline to read, while completely ignoring another.
        • Indeed, most roads in the United States are built by the county or cities, and 99% of those are not considered notable. If the state has built it, it is worth at least a mention somewhere, if not more. --Rschen7754 01:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Except we don't know who built it because there are not significant sources establishing any facts about this road! Did the state department of transportation built it? Did they pay for the county or city to build it? Or did they just decide to make it part of the system with a number later? We know nothing about this beyond its route on the map, hence it is not notable. The article says "The first incarnation of M-144 was designated by 1937 to serve as the connector to the state police headquarters" but this has no basis in the source whatsoever – we may have known that the state police HQ was located there, but not the actual purpose of contructing or designating this stretch of road! The sources, being only maps, do not give any history other than the inferrence that it was numbered "by 1937" and de-numbered "in 1939" because of differences in maps published at certain dates. However, the very title of this article is unverified because the cited map dated 1936 does show M-144, so having a title starting in 1937 seems to be inaccurate because it was on the 1936 map and there is no earlier map – or written source – that lacks the 144. WP:ROADOUTCOMES says "Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself." but when we only have maps, we cannot "describe" anything beyond the route! Reywas92^Talk 04:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. After reconsidering the issue, reading the arguments above, and also considering potential precedent-setting, I'm convinced by Dough4872 and TheCatalyst31 that, while I would not shed tears if it were redirected-without-prejudice, this should be kept independently. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • So something is notable despite not having a single sentence of prose in secondary sources presented? This warrants a list entry but not a standalone article. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Except there's already a precedent: "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the requirement of verifiability." With no non-map sources, this is not notable. Reywas92^Talk 04:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect I'm happy with the idea of articles citing maps, but an article's notability should not be based solely on map entries per WP:NGEO. This article is entirely sourced to map entries. I'm also not entirely sure that it even gets past the fundamental requirement in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability that article subjects must have at least one reliable independent source. Essentially all the sources cited are created or published by the Michigan State Highway Department, which maintained the highway, and arguably aren't independent. The author also seems to have steered uncomfortably close to original research in an effort to squeeze some actual prose out of the maps cited, e.g. "The highway was decommissioned in 1939" is sourced to two 1939 maps, and I assume the road isn't listed in them, but this doesn't actually support the statement in the article without inference from the editor. If we have to stoop that low just to write a few sentences then it isn't possible to write an acceptable standalone article. Hut 8.5 19:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Questions for Imzadi1979, but in reality anyone watching this page could help: In 1931, the McNitt Act required counties to set up county highway commissions and take over 20% of all township roads in the county; that took place from 1931 through 1937. The 1951 McNitt Act act transferred the rest of township roads to the county level.

1. At this point between 1931 and 1937, was MSHD itself maintaining highways or was it still devolved to the counties?
2. Were these 20% of township highways becoming state highways?
3. When did the Ingham County Road Commission name their highways? All at once or in stages?
4. Would it stand to reason that M-144 was a township road promoted to the state highway system by the county?
5. Do we have access to Ingham County Road Commission minutes from the era of M-144?
6. According to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan, there were quite a few highway transfers of jurisdiction, including M-144. What changed?

I just did about 10 minutes of research and came up with these questions that I think would fill in some of the perceived holes in this article. –Fredddie™ 22:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• keep per TheCatalyst31 JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 17:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - as per Imzadi and TheCatalyst31. I also note that there is a discussion going on at the article's talk page regarding it's GA status, which never devolves into its notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. An article based solely on maps violates WP:NOR, a core policy. Maps are primary sources. WP:PSTS, part of WP:NOR, directs: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Sandstein 15:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  Maps are primary sources certainly not, this doesn't reflect how maps are made. The GIS data is the primary source. Please see Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles. --Rschen7754 18:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Rschen7754, and the map is a faithful representation of that data, or of reality; if doesn't contain original thought. That still makes it a primary source, just like an aerial photo. Per WP:PSTS: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." None of that is found in maps, at least not enough to base an article on. Nothing in the essay you cite changes this. Sandstein 10:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

And again, this does not reflect what maps are made. A cartographer has to decide what elements to include or exclude from a map, and how to label them. That is original thought. --Rschen7754 17:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

But you can't draw any conclusions from that except for "such and such road was on such and such map in such year". Hog Farm _Bacon 17:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Is that no different than saying "such and such writings was on such and such newspaper in such year"? JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 17:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not enough to contribute to notability, though. WP:NGEO excludes maps from notability-generating coverage, and the essay on using maps linked above says The presence of an object on a map is not sufficient by itself to show notability of a subject.. So I think there's a really good argument that if we can't source this thing to non-map sources, it can't meet the notability requirements. I have not seen a single sentence of prose written about this subject in reliable sources. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anybody has argued that just because it's on a map, it's notable - in fact, that is why most city streets get deleted off English Wikipedia. But the notability of the state highway system is not disputed, and this article describes a portion of it. --Rschen7754 21:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The entry in List of state trunkline highways in Michigan also documents that the subject was part of the state highway system, we don't need a standalone article for that. Hut 8.5 21:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete or weak merge - Having a page for a stretch of highway that was less than half a mile long, and existed for less than two years, over 80 years ago, does not provide value to anyone. There aren't even any references for the years that it was active! The second version of the M-144, which existed for 33 years, doesn't have its own page but is redirected to the M-18. If there is a page about the physical stretch of road as it exists today, this should be merged into it. Otherwise it should simply be deleted. TimeEngineer (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete has nothing to do with M-18 and not notable. It's kind of like how in WPTC, we don't have an article for Phillippe. --Hurricane Tracker 495 21:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Not notable, very ephemeral at best. This looks to me like a way to have state highway funds build a road from the state police building to a southbound interchange. Cxbrx (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Dolphin Shopping Centre. The "keep" side, despite being asked to, does not address the "delete" side's arguments that coverage in sources of this bus station is local or otherwise insufficient for notability. The only other argument advanced for keeping is "it's a [large / important] bus station", which is not a factor for inclusion according to our guidelines. I therefore have to give the "keep" opinions less weight and find consensus to not keep the article. However, given the number of divergent opinions and the occasional "merge" opinions, a redirection to the apparently adjoining Dolphin Shopping Centre in whose article the station is already mentioned seems to be an appropriate alternative to deletion. Sandstein 13:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Poole Bus Station

Poole Bus Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable bus station. Routine local coverage in references but nothing to establish anything that makes this bus station stand out from hundreds of others. noq (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - quite a lot of coverage in the sources/media. The subject of the article is ok, it just needs expansion. Eyebeller (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the sources? They are all routine, mostly not WP:significant coverage. It does not need expansion it needs a reason for the article to exist. noq (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Doesn't matter if it's insignificant. It's not a private service (e.g. a restaurant) where the article could be seen as advertising, it's a public bus station. JayPlaysStuff (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

What part of WP:GNG says being public makes it notable? Note also that it is privately owned by a bus company so how is that different from a privately owned restaurant? noq (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The bus station is the largest of its kind in Dorset, and is home to the largest outdoor mural in the UK. Surely that is notable? User:MoonlightTulsi (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2020

Is it exceptionally large or just the largest in an arbitrary area? Largest outdoor mural claim by the architects I cannot verify. I can find claims of a larger one in London, and cannot find a wiki article about that. This is just a bus station like hundreds of others around the country. I'm sure I could find timetables of bus companies using them, local newspaper stories about antisocial behaviour and so on for almost all of them. What makes this particular one stand out? noq (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - enough sources to pass GNG in my view. This is not a bus stop, it's a major interchange. Deus et lex (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

And which of the admittedly many sources, are independent, significant coverage in reliable sources? Links to bus company timetables, letters to the local paper, police response to antisocial behaviour in the area, press releases from the architects and bus companies, passing mentions and what else? noq (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

What would you consider a notable bus station? In reference to other wiki articles on British bus stations. MoonlightTulsi (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2020

Which of the sources do you consider to be WP:significant coverage in independent WP:reliable sources as required by WP:GNG? The only thing I can see that would be vaguely notable is the mural - but that is sourced to the architect (including the AJ article which is clearly from a press release) and I can't find anything independent for that. noq (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Not just a bus stop, but a major bus interchange station with plenty of sourcing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Not sure what bus stops have to do with it - not been claimed anywhere that it is a bus stop. What makes a major interchange station? Where are the sources saying that? The sources are all either not independent, not significant coverage or not reliable. noq (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Merge A lot of these sources are local in nature or give barebone information such as time tables and addresses. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be much that can be said about the station; the article has to cite to letters to the editor for the claim about anti-social behavior. I would compare this to an article such as B46 (New York City bus). While most of the sources there are also local, there is a lot that can be said about the bus and the article relies on a large number of publications. I've recently lost access to a lot of my university databases and I'm no expert on transport articles, so I don't feel too comfortable voting delete. However, I don't think this is as slam-dunk a keep as many of the !voters are making it out to be. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Changing my vote to merge per Jumpytoo below. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Dolphin Shopping Centre A cursory look on Google Maps shows these two buildings are integrated with each other, so a merge there wouldn't be unreasonable. Jumpytoo Talk 07:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The bus station is a separate building to the shopping centre. Other British bus stations have under referenced articles. I'm not sure what the standard is. MoonlightTulsi (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2020

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The standard is at WP:GNG. How does/could this article meet that? noq (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. The article certainly seems to describe a notable transport hub. The article could use some improvements, such as an Infobox and some more route details, but that is no reason to delete an article which provides details I can see a user looking for further information appreciating.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

How exactly is the stop notable? Virtually all of the coverage I’ve found consists of either trivial mentions and the local paper providing routine coverage of things that happened at the station; there are few (if any) sources that cover the station in serious encyclopedic depth. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

it is not a bus stop, it is a bus station. There is a difference MoonlightTulsi (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2020

That was an error on my part. Regardless, how does the station met notability requirements? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete I've gone through the sources, and the only independent, reliable, significant coverage I see is in the Bournemouth Echo, which is a local publication. Furthermore, the BE's coverage is rather routine: announcements and crime, that's about it. So, from the sources currently in the article, the only conclusion I can draw is that this building is only of local interest, and even that not much. So, per WP:AUD (perhaps somewhat liberally) and WP:ROUTINE (or that one sentence in WP:NOTNEWS that it draws from), and considering that the BE is just one source, I don't think this bus station is notable. PJvanMill)talk( 13:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • What would you consider a notable bus station? In reference to other wiki articles on British bus stations. MoonlightTulsi (talk) 6:22, 8 December 2020

As stated previously, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The standard is at WP:GNG. How does/could this article meet that? Can you answer that rather than repeating the same question that has already been answered. noq (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

MoonlightTulsi, to answer your question simply: a bus station covered in more and better sources. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep It's a notable transport hub. It doesn't have to stand out from all the other notable transport hubs because our policy is that Wikipedia is not paper and so we have room for them all. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

What makes it notable? I have seen several people say it is nut no one showing it is. If existence and assertion is the only qualification, then what is the point of notability guidelines? noq (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• It appears that there have been bus services in Poole since 1905 which makes them historic -- the oldest in the country. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• But the bus station is not historic. And no where near the oldest in the country. noq (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm really just not seeing how notability is met. The only in-depth coverage consists of information about a mural installed at the station rather than about the station itself; everything else is either trivial mentions or local news (most of which is itself routine coverage of changes in bus lines and damage caused by vandalism and flooding). The mural may meet notability requirements, but the station it is installed in does not. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

And the claim made above to Poole having the oldest bus service in the country does not appear to be backed up anywhere. No mention in Bus transport in the United Kingdom. noq (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Coverage from only local news does not establish notability - see WP:AUD. SK2242 (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 01:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Simplify Recordings

Simplify Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Perhaps Aaron Simpson deserves an article, but Simplify Recordings is not notable. I hope I’m not mistaken but this very long list of artists and releases and recordings do not include any notable individuals. - SHARPER IMAGE ^(talk) 23:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - SHARPER IMAGE ^(talk) 23:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• -and it looks like they created the page themselves. - SHARPER IMAGE ^(talk) 23:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - The article looks like an attempt to drum up musical notability, but the proper notability guidelines in this case are actually found at WP:COMPANY. Those guidelines say that no company is inherently notable and an article requires evidence of significant and independent media coverage that is about the company itself. This record company is not notable because some of its artists found various levels of success. I agree with the nominator that founder Aaron Simpson could qualify for an article, but the media simply has not covered this company in any reliable way. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a PROMO article, with what seems like an obvious COI. I agree that it is an attempt to puff up notability. As of today now artists are starting to add themselves to the article, likely for promotional reasons. This is not what the encylopedia is for. They need a good website instead of using Wikipedia for that purpose. Does not pass WP:NCORP criteria, and the sourcing lacks WP:CORPDEPTH significant coverage. General notability fail. Netherzone (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Zari Hassan

Zari Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

the topic of this article Fails Wikipedia Notability rules .. WHEN it comes to music or business woman , there is nothing to talk about , it Fails GNG, WP:MUSICBIO . NO evidence of Notability Found Samat lib (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to be another case of WP:IDONOTLIKEIT by this nominator. She passes our general notability guidelines and has been covered in major mainstream publications in Africa, for example:

• "Zari yankiye umuririmvyi akomeye wo muri Kenya" - BBC
• "Zari Hassan secretly seeing Diamond Platnumz? She responds" - The Standard
• "Zari shares how she lost weight in less than 10 days" - The Standard
• "Come we stay? Zari wants partner but not husband" - The Star (Kenya)
• "Zari Hassan to host prestigious awards show alongside Michael Blackson" - The Standard
• "‘I’m not going to sign my life away,’ Zari Hassan speaks on marriage" - The Standard
• Zari Hassan's message: trollers long my babies are happy rest..." - International Business Times
• "Zari Hassan opens up, says she is a victim of domestic violence" - The Standard
• "I’m a corporate Baby Mama, says Zari in classy clap back at Idris Sultan" - The Standard
• "Zari says she was once a victim of domestic violence" - The Citizen
• "Zari 'the boss lady' Hassan opens up about her life, inspirations and success" CapeTalk

and her relationship with Diamond Platnumz was covered in reliable secondary sources.[9][10][11][12][13]

I'm sure a more in-depth non-English search would also bring up some more. Yes, she's a socialite and businessperson but she's a famous person, that is for sure who passes GNG. Missvain (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep no valid reason for deletion offered and sources have been obviously demonstrated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment the sources provided are from a single body related source - The Standard , No significant discussion of her music , still there is NO evidence of Notability , Fails GNG, WP:MUSICBIO ; WHEN it comes to music or business woman , there is nothing to talk about , it Fails GNG, WP:MUSICBIO . Samat lib (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly meets the level of sourcing required by GNG. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion is split between keeping and merging. In either case, deletion is not warranted, and a definitive decision on a merge can happen outside of the microscope of AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Monday Morning (newsletter)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Monday Morning (newsletter)
• Articles for deletion/Monday Morning (newsletter) (2nd nomination)

Monday Morning (newsletter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While the content is somewhat different, the topic is no more notable than it was when the article was deleted two days ago. As the references in the article reflect, there's a lack of independent source with which to pass WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Well, it's not an obvious delete. When a pen stirs up a campus from The Hindu is an exceptionally good source. And then there's Campus journalism helps students get ahead from Careers 360, a career website that runs a magazine. Interesting, they begin almost identically, so it seems that The Hindu (despite being a newspaper of record for India) plagiarized a bit; however, they do diverge in the body. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I identified that Hindu source in the first deletion discussion, but establishing notability requires multiple independent sources. The Careers360 piece has the feel of an advertorial, so I'm not sure it's truly independent. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Added a couple of useful external links that clearly show that Monday Morning is a student media body and newsletter that is recognized even by another national newspaper named The New Indian Express. Apart from this, mentions in other websites have also been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzival221B (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. The piece that Parzival221B provided from The New Indian Express looks like a clear second GNG-qualifier, complementing the The Hindu piece I mentioned above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep in support of the notes written by sdkb above. I also appreciate the obvious effort put into the piece - and while I realize that is a non-scientific reason to support an article, the good faith it shows means something to me.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: The Hindu is the only source that meets GNG. The other two mentioned are promotional (Careers 360) or do not contain SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth (Indian Express).   // Timothy :: talk  17:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• I was initially hopeful as there were 2 keep votes but now that there is a delete vote, I think I need to clarify a couple of things. First is that both The Hindu and The New Indian Express are newspapers of national repute. A mention in them is impossible if an organization or person is not notable. Needless to say that Monday Morning has more than a mention; it has an entire article in one while an entire paragraph devoted to it in them. In addition to this, it must also be noted that the student newsletter/ media body of a public university comes under the indirect purview of the government itself. And National Institute of Technology Rourkela is a fully government-funded university of national repute. It can neither promote itself nor consider the option and hence Careers360, an independent educational website must also be considered. Last but not least, if there is anything to modify in the article feel free to inform here. Parzival221B (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Reply: to points above: No one is diputing that The Hindu and the New Indian Express are reliable sources, they are sources of national repute: the issue is SIGCOV. An "entire paragraph" is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth; Government oversight and funding is not relevant to notability, but it does mean government sources are not IS RS; Government organizations self promote all the time. The claim "A mention in them is impossible if an organization or person is not notable." is nonsense, but yes as you state these are mentions, not SIGCOV. Careers360 is a fine site, but they do run promotional content; this is not bad, lots of fine sites do it, but it does mean it does not count towards notability of the subject under discussion.   // Timothy :: talk  08:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Reply: I respect your opinion and hold high regard for your in-depth knowledge about the issues in the article. But the thing here is that we cannot expect a student news media body to have so much coverage in the mainstream media. And this is not just the case with Monday Morning but pretty much most other student media bodies as well. I will request you all to go through the wiki article of 'The Doon School Weekly', another Indian student news media body/newspaper. It has barely a handful of insignificant mentions (that too not primary) and yet the page seems to have no issues. Then there's a student magazine from New Zealand named Gyro which also barely cites any references and yet has no issues mentioned and the list goes on. I apologise if I am wrong in this matter as I'm a newbie here but I need to pose this question to know what faults remain in the wiki page of MM. Parzival221B (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
      • It would be worth reading WP:GNG, Parzival221B. The criteria used to judge whether topics should have Wikipedia articles is whether they've been covered in depth by multiple, reliable sources. Your argument that "we cannot expect a student news media body to have so much coverage in the mainstream media" is essentially an argument that student newspapers do not meet the notability criteria, which I would agree with. It might be that the other article you mention should be deleted too. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete changed !vote to Merge, see below. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)- I agree that nothing has changed since this article was deleted earlier this month. However, the issue is SIGCOV, which this does not meet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have reopened and relisted this discussion per a discussion on my talk page with Sdkb. I will recuse myself from any further participation in this AfD to let another admin make the decision. Thanks everyone! Missvain (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Regarding SIGCOV, the New Indian Express piece clearly qualifies as significant in my view. The coverage is on the third page, which you need to click to get to, so there may have been some confusion above, but it's several quite long paragraphs directly about the paper, covering many different aspects of its operation and impact and interspersed with quotes. Putting that together with the Hindu piece, this meets GNG. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Not to make an WP:OTHERSTUFF justification, but simply to provide context, we generally cover college newspapers, provided that they meet GNG (see Category:Student newspapers). While the vast majority of references cited in this article are self-pub or otherwise not reliable sources, the Hindu and especially the New Indian Express articles certainly do meet SIGCOV.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• weak keep per JGHowes. One very good source, one borderline source, a bunch of poor sources. It gets over the bar, but without much slack... Hobit (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• My concern here is that these two sources are barely used in the article, and I don't see much prospect of this changing if the article is kept, given that they're both from 2012 (some historical material could be based on them, maybe). That leaves the rest of the article to be based what Hobit calls "a bunch of poor sources" - i.e. non-independent ones. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Fair, but that really isn't a requirement of WP:N. And I do think the articles could incorporate these sources more. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Please check the Wiki articles of other student newspapers (see List of student newspapers); you'd realize that even the coverage that Monday Morning has got in national newspapers is not easy to find for many other student newspapers (see Gyro (magazine), Chaff (newspaper), Universitas (newspaper) ). And of those student newspapers which have SIGCOV, many have it for the wrong reasons. Also, notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Plus we have 2 SIGCOV sources here, another thing missing in Wiki articles of many student newspapers. I believe student newspapers should be covered by Wikipedia (from moral point of view) since student media is still in its nascent stages at most universities around the world. If there is any part of the article content to be trimmed, you all are free to do so. There are pics of major events and initiatives to support the content too. Parzival221B (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela#Monday Morning. The above sources are not significant coverage. TNIE (p. 3) and The Hindu only cover this topic in cursory detail—altogether sourcing a paragraph about this part of student life in the context of the university but not as an independently notable affair. It wouldn't be possible to cover this topic without deferring to primary source original research and indeed, look at the article's current state. Careers 360 has no editorial credentials. It should not be used as a source. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • How on earth is an article on this topic not significant coverage? The Hindu article is exactly about this newspaper/newsletter. Hobit (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a good suggestion, Czar. I'd support a merge of material that can be sourced to the NIT Rourkela article as an alternative to deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Still unclear what your argument is that this doesn't meet WP:N. We have two reliable sources. Both with more than trivial coverage. It meets WP:N. Not with a ton of room to spare, that I'll grant you. But it's there and the sources are not about trivial things, but rather the impact this has had on its community. Hobit (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

      For two sources to be "enough", i.e., to write an entire encyclopedia article on two sources alone, they'd have to have incredible depth on the subject. These sources do not. We'd be lucky to squeeze a single paragraph of material relevant to a general audience out of these sources. That is not "significant coverage". If this changes in the future, that's why we have summary style—it could always split back out if warranted by an overabundance of sourcing. czar 16:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

      • That's not even vaguely what our policies and guidelines say. At this point you are into WP:IAR territory. That's a fine place to be, but don't pretend it has anything to do with our actual inclusion guidelines. Once WP:N is met, we can use other reliable sources, including those that aren't independent. And nothing says the article needs to be more than a few paragraphs. If you want to form consensus for a merger as an editorial issue, that's fine. But that discussion goes on the article talk page. Hobit (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

        The second clause of the definition of significant coverage: what can we extract without regressing into original research? If next to nothing, then "WP:N" isn't clearly "met" as the coverage isn't significant. Short text, by a lack of secondary sourcing, is a predominant reason to merge. Alternatives to deletion are fine AfD topics. czar 18:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

        • Czar Cordless Larry I repeat this. Please check the Wiki articles of other student newspapers (see List of student newspapers); you'd realize that even the coverage that Monday Morning has got in national newspapers is not easy to find for many other student newspapers (see Gyro (magazine), Chaff (newspaper), Universitas (newspaper) ). And of those student newspapers which have SIGCOV, many have it for the wrong reasons. I guess student newspapers are given relaxations and at this point of time the page has SIGCOV from two of the largest newspapers of India to justify its notability as a student newspaper. In a nutshell, even less significant and notable student newspapers have been able to have standalone pages of their own, that too without any issues. I don't see any reason why the page on Monday Morning, an organization which has SIGCOV (a rarity amongst student newspapers) needs to be merged. Parzival221B (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Parzival221B, no, the requirements aren't lower for student newspapers than other articles; they still need significant coverage (which doesn't have to be positive in tone - Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to promote their subjects). If other articles exist despite a lack of significant coverage, they should be deleted, but that has no bearing on the outcome here. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Incidentally, I've rewritten the Chaff (newspaper) article based on a number of sources I was able to find. To my mind, the extent of the coverage it's received means that it's a perhaps unusual case of a student newspaper that does meet our notability threshold. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

            Since I was pinged, I'd just clarify that those articles need to be evaluated on their own merits and might end up merged as well. Appearing in a paragraph in a national newspaper is not in itself a sign that we can support a full article on the topic. czar 18:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

            It's not just described extensively in a paragraph of The New Indian Express but also has an entire article devoted to it in The Hindu Czar. And coming to the coverage of Chaff (newspaper), it is mostly due to the Mao Zedong controversy. As editors, wouldn't it be in the best interests to include a student newspaper with positive impact rather than a controversial one? And here, it even has two SIGCOV sources which meet WP:GN easily and a third independent Careers360 which you term as promotional (but is not) Cordless Larry Parzival221B (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

            If you think there's "extensive" content, write the article/section. I don't see enough nearly content in those two sources to say anything of substance without leaning on primary sources. Chaff is off-topic. I think we've all heard each other out at this point, so I won't be responding to future pings. (not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 06:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Parzival221B, as I've explained already, Wikipedia policies don't prefer "positive" coverage over "negative" - it's the extent of it that matters. You might also want to consult WP:COI and WP:NPOV if you're here to promote the subject of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

CzarThe shorter of the two sources we are discussion is 3 paragraphs long and about 350 words. I'm not sure why you are claiming there is just one. Could you explain?Hobit (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

So, a Twinkle tag was added too. Now, I won't be writing anything else but this is a general message to the community. Please start giving importance to positive coverage. The student newspapers are run by the youth and the lack of differentiation between negative and positive media coverage is a potential threat. Many student-run media bodies might interpret that they need to do something to appear on headlines and might do controversial things just for fame. Now, I know this isn't the place to discuss this but Ethics is important, especially on a knowledge-rich platform like this. What if the Monday Morning Team thinks they too would need to put a controversial cartoon or pic on their site just to appear on headlines of national newspapers? Parzival221B (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela#Monday Morning as per Czar, simply not enough in-depth coverage for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  Onel5969 can you please tell me which standalone article in List of student newspapers has in-depth coverage? And coming to the example of Chaff (newspaper), I believe there should be an article about the Mao Zedong controversy and not Chaff (newspaper) because the controversy was highlighted by the newspapers and Chaff itself was sidelined. I still cannot see why the cited sources are considered as SIGCOV for 'Chaff' when they are actually SIGCOV for the Mao Zedong controversy. How about creating a standalone article for the controversy and then merging Chaff (newspaper) in that? The action of merging Monday Morning with the NIT Rourkela article is as absurd as that. Though it is the college's student media body, it's independent. Merging will only make readers believe that Monday Morning is completely controlled by NIT Rourkela staff/faculty rather than being a student-run media body which it actually is. In essence, it creates a wrong perception on readers' minds.Parzival221B (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• • Parzival221B, on your first question, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If there are articles on that list that should be nominated for deletion (I'm certain there are), please do so. On Chaff, there are independent sources that cover the newspaper in general, not just the Mao controversy, but this isn't the place to discuss that. If you'd like to propose moving the article, I suggest starting a discussion on its talk page and trying to achieve consensus for proposed changes. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing above is the editors who favor merging/deletion trying to apply a ridiculously tight interpretation of GNG in the face of sources that clearly establish GNG; I fully agree with Hobit that the delete case rests on IAR at this point. I do not buy Parzival221B's argument that the fact the coverage is positive should make us want to keep, but I do think we ought to consider the nature of newspapers (as compared to spammy businesses) when weighing how strictly to apply our criteria. As WP:NMEDIA explicitly articulates, there is clear encyclopedic value in erring on the side of inclusion for newspapers, as they may be used as sources and an article helps readers assess their credibility, something that aligns with our broadly defined mission to improve knowledge ecosystems. It'd be one thing to resort to IAR to try to delete a UPE's marketing attempt, but to resort to IAR for this? The sourcing here is sufficient even if we apply our standards strictly (albeit not with a ton of room to spare), and we should be applying them loosely. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Quick procedural note: The talk page with the project tags was never un-deleted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sangat Singh Minhas

Sangat Singh Minhas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Supposedly a chief/commander in 17th century India. Fails WP:GNG. The article cites no sources and I can't find any reliable sources that describe this person. The article's content does not suggest he is particularly notable either. Lennart97 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete no RS establishing notability, may be WP:HOAX. Mztourist (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I can confirm that a quick database search turns up nothing (literally). Perryprog (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:V unless someone else can find RS sources establishing notability. Note: this is not Bhai Sangat Singh who is associated with Guru Gobind Singh and is notable according to numerous books. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as multiple people have found nothing that would even show this person actually existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - likely hoax Spiderone 00:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Keyvan music

Keyvan music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Deleted via PROD only an hour or so ago. Ineligible for PROD now so needs to go to AfD. None of the sources come close to establishing notability; fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:BASIC. Spiderone 22:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyvan Ansari

• Delete per nom. ser! (let's discuss it). 22:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete promotion of a noonnotable musician. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NMUSIC and is written very promotionally. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Pump (band)

Pump (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced for 10 years, no indication of notability. Fails WP:NBAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:BAND. Not exactly the easiest name to search for, and information will be from before the internet anyway. But nothing in the text suggests that this group was notable. Created by an editor with information supplied by one of the band members, and largely edited since then by the same band member under two different accounts, which explains why it's full of personal reminiscences. Richard3120 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I agree that the name makes searching difficult, so I tried with their LP, and all I got were the usual user-generated sites and retail/streaming sites. Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Barikisu Issahaku

Barikisu Issahaku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

At first glance, this looks like a clear WP:GNG pass, however, upon examining each of the sources, most of them are rehashings of each other. They are almost all the same article, where she is mentioned just the once as one of 30 players called up to an under-20 squad. The way the article has been referenced is extremely misleading as the sources used for the reference largely don't correspond with the text at all. She fails WP:NFOOTBALL as per Soccerway, GSA, Playmaker Stats and Soccerdonna. Spiderone 22:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GYS (company)

GYS (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has been around for a while, but there's no indication that it passes WP:NCORP, and there's not much more available online (although it is admittedly a little hard to search for). – bradv🍁 21:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Magnolia677 (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Des Moines Women’s Club

Des Moines Women’s Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Unable to locate any significant biographical details about this organization in secondary sources. Two large sections of the article--the Hoyt Sherman Place and the art gallery--are only slightly related to this organization. There is no doubt this a generous and benevolent organization, but I'm not seeing the notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• First of all, the Des Moines Women's Club owned and operated Hoyt Sherman Place from 1906 to 1995. During that time the Club built the two galleries and the theater, significantly more than half the square footage of the building. In addition the club bought and collected the entire art collection and opened the first art gallery in Des Moines. Many of the newspaper articles I have cited describe this in detail. Do I need to outline for you what is in the articles?? It is very wrong to say these institutions are only slightly related to Des Moines Women's Club. In addition, the club is very notable for its history and it's influence in the civic life of Des Moines, funding and developing the first city plan, working to develop the Public Library and lobbying for a Des Moines Water Works. I can't help wondering if the comments is saying this because he believes no women's organization is notable. I have added some additional quotes from the articles I have cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrtruck (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep This article was nominated for deletion less than two hours after it was moved into the main article namespace. That seems a bit hasty to me, for an article that clearly doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. If it is felt that this article references too few significant secondary sources, why not add a "more citations needed" tag, rather than just trash a page for which additional secondary sources might be found? If adequate secondary sourcing is not done after the article's creator has been made aware of the problem, then perhaps a deletion discussion would be appropriate. I think it's pretty likely that a 135 year old organization that funded the first city plan for the state's capital city, has a long standing scholarship fund, etc can be adequately documented as notable.PopePompus (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Seems clear that despite a lot of references there is very little significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Maila Carboni

Maila Carboni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I can't see any indication of passing WP:NFOOTBALL and the sources are not sufficient for WP:GNG, mainly because a lot of them cannot be classed as independent sources or as significant coverage of Carboni. Spiderone 21:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Do not delete there is a long list of players with similar credentials from the same division as well as present and past team mates who have a wikipedia page User:Gio230564 7:45 AM, December 22nd — Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Please show me at least two sources that show coverage that would meet criteria listed at WP:GNG. Also see WP:NOTLINKEDIN; the entire page is written in a way to promote the player. Wikipedia is not appropriate for this at all. I have removed some of this material. Spiderone 15:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

here is a link to the wikipedia page for the soccer team which contains a long list of players who have a wikipedia page. The page has been edited and any reference/comment that wasn't factual has been removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollon_Ladies_F.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gio230564 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Those players all have international caps so they meet WP:NFOOTBALL. There is still not one reliable news source showing significant coverage of this player Spiderone 18:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I apologize and ask this to understand better. There are pages dedicated to men players and those players do play in top divisions but have no international caps with their national teams. Do they meet the criteria because they are men? Or is it because the men's national leagues are more important than the women's? I am simply trying to understand and not being argumentative; from what I am understanding a player who plays in a top league in a country who has no National team caps meets the criteria, however, a woman who plays in a top league who has no national caps does not. Furthermore, a number of the players in the wikipedia page I referred to, are listed in their national squads but have not set foot on the field. Second, I have referenced a number of times Ginekio.com, which is a Cyprus based website that covers their Women's soccer league; it is a large site containing close and detailed coverage of their league. This isn't a reliable source? I have referenced multiple articles from a renowned Canadian university, this is also not reliable? Lastly, there are references linked to official provincial associations based in Canada, which are also not reliable sources? Again, simply trying to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gio230564 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

NFOOTBALL is linked to WP:FPL. There are some women's leagues listed as fully professional but most currently are not. The second tier in Italy and the Cypriot league are definitely not fully pro. Players can still be notable even in semi-pro leagues but they must meet WP:GNG. Good examples are Sara Mérida, Sammie Wood and Cristina Pizarro. All fail NFOOTBALL but meet the biographical notability because they have multiple articles from different major publications covering them in depth. Also note that the coverage is more than just routine, run-of-the-mill stuff like "x signs new contract" "y FC signs x for £1m" etc. It's stuff that you can build a biography from. If you remove all of the sources where Carboni is only mentioned once then there really isn't much left. She also doesn't pass WP:COLLATH, in my view. The best articles are this and this but both are painfully brief. Spiderone 15:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - unfortunately, I think that this is a classic case of WP:REFBOMB. The only slightly decent coverage is all from Ginekio and even most of that coverage is entirely run-of-the-mill. Note that plenty of references don't even mention her once. Spiderone 13:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Missvain (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Right Bank Essequibo Neighbourhood Democratic Council

Right Bank Essequibo Neighbourhood Democratic Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

What brought this page to my attention was the reference to BOOKS LLC, infamous re-publisher of Wikipedia content. The strange referencing (all 3 'sources' crammed into one citation) was another red flag. Right Bank Essequibo NDC is simply not:

"Right Bank Essequibo" isn't in the Neighbourhood Councils of Guyana article- NOR on Guyana's ministry website for NDRs or Guyana's Ministry of Statistics 2002 NDC Data (5th down from Census 2002, pdf download).

As with any important waterway, there will be various regional titles, such as this PAHO report that refers to "Right Bank Essequibo" as a "Region" of District 10. But any area can be a 'region'- it is not a Neighborhood Democratic Council. Here is another government document that uses "Right Bank Essequibo" to describe it like a road. No sources indicate this is a historic title.

The ultimate nail in the coffin should be the indef of the article's creator. It's one thing to love data, but one must also respect the data.

Deletion is preferable to merging/redirecting because these discrepancies indicate that the information used to make this was warped or garbled from poor sourcing, misunderstanding political jurisdictions, or some other confusion. Estheim (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Logs: 2019-02 move to → Draft:Right Bank Essequibo Neighbourhood Democratic Council

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. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The Tedder Club

The Tedder Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I think this is a likely hoax. It was created by a SPA and the account of the club’s foundation and naming seems fanciful. Even if true, it is not evident that a secret club about which almost nothing is known can be notable in Wikipedia terms. Of the two sources provided, the first is inaccessible online but does not seem relevant. The second simply shows that there was a genuine club in Egypt with the same name, that had nothing to do with the topic of this article. Mccapra (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Poorly sourced, unable to determine notability with what's provided. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete no SIGCOV in multiple RS to establish notability or even really confirm its existence. Mztourist (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - I have doubts as to whether or not this is real, but in any case notability has clearly not been shown and most of the article has no evidence to support it. Dunarc (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - completely unnecessary, possibly false, poorly written, etc. EPIC STYLE ^{(LET'S TALK)} 02:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete May not be a hoax, but I've seen hoaxes that were better sourced. No indication of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The issue is whether this book has sufficient coverage for notability. While the "keep" side has proposed references to that effect, the "delete" side has argued that they do not provide significant coverage of the book, but merely mention or cite it. And, crucially, the "keep" side has not addressed these counterarguments, which leads me to give their views less weight. Sandstein 08:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947

Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this to meet the basic threshold for notability. Auxentios (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Currently the sources are insufficient to establish the book as notable per WP:NBOOK. The sources cited are: [14], an ebook version of the text; [15], which is supposed to be a bibliography, but the bibliography does not appear on that page; [16], a list of books (including this book) which were being offered for sale in 1997; and [17], a domain which is now for sale and has no relevant content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete The article is totally unreferenced. Metropolitan90 already has described above one working external link that does not even address the above article's subject and is irrelevant here. The other external links are dead. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Entirely meets WP:N and WP:NBOOK. Significant coverage in independent scholarly literature is easily accessible too.[18][19] The nomination makes no sense. Azuredivay (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those links give the book "significant coverage". Both of those simply cite from the book and that is not enough to meet the WP:N or WP:NBOOK guidelines.VR _talk 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per Azuredivay. Abhi88iisc (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep -- The article refers to several reprints and academic citations. This is sufficient to make it notable. The events of Idian partition are an unpleasant subject, which some may wish to hide from. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Peterkingiron the article doesn't have a single reference or citation.VR _talk 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete as the onus of demonstrating notability lies on those who wish to keep the article and thus far has not been demonstrated. The article currently doesn't have a single reference.VR _talk 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, the book is not reviewed anywhere that I can find; but it is cited, in mostly trivial ways, a few times when searched for using google scholar: Hardyplants (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I find this Article Title somewhat confusing? No pre-independence political parties – Indian National Congress party, All-India Muslim League shamelessly ordered or endorsed, as far as I know, any attacks based on people's religions, which I think this article title implies - on literally reading it. However, we all know people of all three religions in the Punjab attacked each other and tragically countless lives were lost. Existing Wikipedia main article Partition of India in 1947 already covers it. I hope and suggest that we don't start this 'blame game' all over again and further open up old wounds. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The article title is literally the title of the book that this article is about. If the article is kept but the title seems problematic, the article could be moved to Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947 (book) to distinguish the book title from a characterization of the event. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The book passes multiple criteria of WP:NBOOK. Cataloged by National library of Australia,[20] and also Worldcat.[21] It has been also cited as a detailed reliable source by multiple scholarly sources:

• Gyanendra Pandey; Professor of History Gyanendra Pandey (22 November 2001). Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism and History in India. Cambridge University Press. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-521-00250-9. A Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) report on the 'Muslim League' attack on Sikhs and Hindus in 1947, published in 1950, was equally ardent in its acclaim of the 'epic resistance' offered by Sikh men and women in village after village throughout Punjab.
• Farahnaz Ispahani (2017). Purifying the Land of the Pure: A History of Pakistan's Religious Minorities. Oxford University Press. pp. 16–. ISBN 978-0-19-062165-0. ....information collated by a Sikh religious organization, the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), in a 453-page book, Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947, indicates "that the main Muslim communal party, the Muslim League, wanted the whole of Punjab and therefore planned the expulsion by all means of Sikhs and Hindus from the areas that were assigned to Pakistan...

The author is notable as well. Azuredivay (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Azuredivay You are completely misunderstanding WP:NBOOK.

Both sources above give the book only sentence of coverage. A single sentence of coverage does not count as "non-trivial coverage" as required by WP:BKCRIT. And neither of them even mention the author of the book. Cataloging is an exclusionary criterion (meaning not all catalogued books merit an article). Finally, the author of the book, Gurbachan Singh Talib, is barely notable himself. He is definitely not "of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study".VR _talk 20:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The book is undoubtedly notable as mentioned by the sources. If you don't like how the article is written then just WP:FIXIT. What happened to WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP? Shankargb (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

A single sentence of coverage does not grant a book notability.VR _talk 20:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The nomination was a failure of WP:BEFORE as the subject meets WP:NBOOK. Eliko007 (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Azuredivay.Note this a 1950 book and sources will be offline.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete None of the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT is meeting here. All books written by a notable person do not automatically become notable by inheritance. Excerpts and mentions only prove that the book exists and this is not a hoax article, these links by themselves do not prove notability. The notability bar has been set higher as we cannot have article on every book that gets a mention online. I have spent some time and diligently gone through each and every link/refs provided above, those in the article and through my own searches. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• [5] and [6] are passing mentions to this book.
• Catalogue of a library does not make it notable.
• Pandey's book is a passing mention of the book where it gets cited once in a paragraph.
• Ispahani book is a passing mention of the book where it gets cited once in a paragraph.

A notable book will have enough reviews and mentions so that enough material will be available to write a Wikipedia article on the same. This is not the case here, only passing mentions were found. Apart from a couple of lines, there is nothing to write in the article of the book. The lack of critical review by noted scholars is itself a big giveaway that this is not a notable book. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete in tunes with Walrusji. The book does not deserve an independent entry. The concept is subset of partition riots.TrangaBellam (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BK. LearnIndology (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947. Sandstein 08:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Indian Muslims: Who Are They

Indian Muslims: Who Are They (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this to meet the basic threshold for notability. Auxentios (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced article with only 1 external link. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable work. Since this article is about a book, and not the subject of the book, I moved it to the media category, since media covers books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete -- we cannot have an article on every book. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - the book certainly exists but it's far from notable Spiderone 22:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Easily passes WP:NBOOK and WP:BOOKCRIT. Cataloged by National Library of Australia.[22] It has been subjected to multiple detailed reviews and detailed mentions by scholarly sources:

• Y.G. Bhave (2005). Modern Hindu Trinity : Ambedkar-Hedgewar-Gandhi. Northern Book Centre. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-81-7211-163-2.
• Mushirul Hasan (13 March 2019). Legacy Of A Divided Nation: India's Muslims From Independence To Ayodhya. Taylor & Francis. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-429-72121-2.
• The Quarterly Review of Historical Studies. Institute of Historical Studies. April 1993. p. 93. K. S. Lal , Indian Muslims : Who Are They .... This is a thought - provoking monograph by Professor K. S. Lal who , as the author of the widely acclaimed History of the Khaljis, needs little introduction to the students of medieval Indian history. Though slim in size, it bears the mark of the same serious scholarship as characterized the author' s earlier works.
• Ashok Kumar Ray (1996). Religion and the Secular Man. Wheeler Pub. ISBN 978-81-85814-20-9. One of them , KS Lal , makes the astounding statement ( in Indian Muslims , Who Are They ? ( p . 114ff )
• And more:[23][24][25][26]

@Peterkingiron and Johnpacklambert: you both may want to review your !votes. Azuredivay (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per sources provided above. Meets WP:GNG. Shankargb (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The nomination was a failure of WP:BEFORE as the subject meets WP:NBOOK. Eliko007 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete None of the criteria of WP:BOOKCRIT is meeting here. I have already verified all the links posted above. Mention of the book in the catalogue of University, passing mentions in other books etc only prove that this is not a hoax article, these do not justify notability. The bar has been set higher as we cannot have article on every book. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as WalrusJi argues. There is are no in-depth reviews. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per Walrus Ji. Book exist but there is no in-depth reviews. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - I found 17 citations on Google scholar and look through the majority of them. Nothing indicates that this book is notable in any way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Anna Demis

Anna Demis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional article, closely paraphrased from the musician's website. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, no significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, did g-searches in UKR, RU, and ENG internet, outside of the social media presence there is not much. Kolma8 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete A wedding pianist is not notable. I don't know what the Xaga awards are either. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Apologies for recreating this article after it was deleted. I believe I opened several articles in WPCleaner to disambiguate the New York links, and then got distracted. The article must have been deleted after I opened the article, and then was recreated when I saved the edit without presenting a warning. The software developer is looking to see what can be done to prevent this in the future. GoingBatty (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Apology accepted :) I see how that could happen. I was already wondering if something was missing from the page's history, but this explains it. Lennart97 (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Wayne Kasserman

Wayne Kasserman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Google news search returns six hits but all are brief mentions. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Kolma8 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable part in the 2008 Knight Rider film/thing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Gajaraja Manthram

Gajaraja Manthram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: All three references are the database entries. Kolma8 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Mannadiar Penninu Chenkotta Checkan

Mannadiar Penninu Chenkotta Checkan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: All 4 references are the database entries. Kolma8 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Gloria Fernandes from USA

Gloria Fernandes from USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: All three references are the database entries. Kolma8 (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete not every film that is released commercially is notable. Our article creation so far seems to have been built on the assumption that virtually all are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - fails NFILM and GNG Spiderone 00:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Maaman Magal (1995 film)

Maaman Magal (1995 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: All 2references are the database entries. Kolma8 (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - plenty of sources appear on Google without doing a strenuous search (and this too for an Indian film from the mid-90s!). This also seems to be the case for several of the other articles you have put up for deletion. I think a whole review needs to be done of your recent edits and suggestions. Neutral Fan (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary im my view Atlantic306 (talk)
• Keep per WP:HEY Donaldd23 (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Virts Corner, Virginia

Virts Corner, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I have no idea why this name shows up on topos in the 1970s, because no topo or map shows anything much there, and searching comes up with essentially nothing besides clickbait. A NN locale, if that. Mangoe (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom. There are over 2,000 pages in Category:Unincorporated communities in Virginia mass-produced like this one (and those in California) with only a single useless line sourced to the unreliable GNIS. List of unincorporated communities in Virginia is mainly CDPs but a redirect of most of the non-notable Virginia places that have not been improved in the last decade would be better than hundreds of individual time-wasting AFDs. Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Aana (film)

Aana (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: All three references are the database entries. Kolma8 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete just because a film was commercially released does not mean it is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Rajali

Rajali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: One reference to a some type of blog with emoji's. Kolma8 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - added few sources which refer to the film. Please note Wikipedia/The World operates in a way which seems to favour Western productions. I'm sure you can understand that 90s websites/scans of 90s newspapers online is incredibly rare. Neutral Fan (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of reliable sources referencing so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:HEY Donaldd23 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Cradle to Grave (film)

Cradle to Grave (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 18:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Chompy Ace 00:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete My last edit on this article shows why we should not allow so many articles on non-notable things. They lead to people creating false links, because there is not enough resources to properly keep things well policed. One actor in this film was named Benjamin Sutherland and there was a link created. If you follow that link you will see it goes to a New Zealand railway clerk who died 68 years before this film was made. This is not the only such false link I have seen in a Wikipedia cast list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - not even close to meeting any of the standards set out at WP:NFILM; a completely non-notable documentary with zero coverage in independent sources; not even worth redirecting anywhere Spiderone 17:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Naalamkettile Nalla Thampimar

Naalamkettile Nalla Thampimar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: All three references are the database entries. Kolma8 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Swarna Kireedam

Swarna Kireedam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: All three references are the database entries. Kolma8 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Malsaram (2004 film)

Malsaram (2004 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: One, which is not about the movie, but the director, mentioning the movie in passing. Kolma8 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Lion (2006 film)

Lion (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: One reference that mentioned the movie in passing ("Only Lion and Chess were hits. "). Kolma8 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

K. L. 7/95 Ernakulam North

K. L. 7/95 Ernakulam North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: All three references are the database entries. Kolma8 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Pallivaathukkal Thommichan

Pallivaathukkal Thommichan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: All three references are the database entries. Kolma8 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Mimics Super 1000

Mimics Super 1000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: All three references are the database entries. Kolma8 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Laptop (2008 film)

Laptop (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: One negative REDIFF review. Kolma8 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep as has at least one full national review. That the review is negative has nothing at all to do with notability it just shows that the review is independent criticism, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: also reviewed by The Times of India here, meeting WP:NFILM. 2pou (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - two reviews is good enough for me Spiderone 09:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per two RS reviews. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep 2 reviews passes WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Broad Rock Manor, Virginia

Broad Rock Manor, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Despite what the article says, this is a neighborhood in the city of Richmond, Virginia, not a community in the county in a different part of the state. Neighborhoods aren't typically considered notable without significant coverage, and I can't turn up much in the way of any coverage. Newspapers.com turns up a lot of real estate ads from the late 1950s and early 1960s, but no actual news coverage of the neighborhood, and searches elsewhere mostly turn up real estate sites and GNIS mirrors. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - Yep, this appears to be a 1950s townhouse development. WP:GNG ain't met. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 16:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Puthukkottayile Puthumanavalan

Puthukkottayile Puthumanavalan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: None, Unsourced. Kolma8 (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - no reviews found; nothing on the Malayalam Wikipedia indicates notability; we are not an IMDb mirror nor are we an indiscriminate film catalogue Spiderone 17:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to discuss redirect on the appropriate talk pages. Missvain (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There Is No Time

There Is No Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable album GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Another one from the flood of Soul Crusher's non-notable bands and albums, this time it's an album. Surprised it hasn't been deleted or at least tagged for notability yet. Well, I tagged it and I also nominate it for deletion so both are solved. Problems are the same as usual: the sources are not even close to be reliable. The Allmusic "review" is just a listing of the bands that appear on this album, a track listing, and user reviews. The other sources are unreliable blogs that are not even about this album, it's just mentioned trivially, and one listing of albums where this title appears. Finally we have the album booklet and a discogs page. So at the end of the day, it's just a usual non-notable album by Soul Crusher. I am actually thankful he has been indefinitely blocked, even if it sounds harsh. We don't need people like him here - ones who create lots and lots of articles about non-notable stuff, and don't give a hoot about notability and warnings. People like him just create problems. Btw, here is a fun fact: There is a very similar user on Hungarian Wikipedia, who has created a lot of non-notable songs' articles, although the artist is always notable. (So in that aspect, he's better than Soul Crusher, but just a tiny bit. At least his articles have a little speck of notability by said songs being performed by notable artists - even though just because the artist is notable, not every song by him/her is.) So anyways, those songs haven't been charted and the sources are always unreliable. And worst of all, they manage to stay there for 2 to 5 years, as he had written those articles between 2015 and 2018. Unlike Soul Crusher though, he has written articles on notable musicians/songs as well. His talk page is also full of Afd warnings. So yeah, Soul Crusher isn't the only one. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - Note that there is no place to redirect because it is a various-artists compilation on an obscure label that has no WP article. We have evidence that the album exists but only in the form of brief announcements (including the so-called "review" at AllMusic), basic retail entries, and occasional mentions in a few articles that are actually about someone who was on it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NALBUM; AllMusic review is not sufficient for a standalone article, HĐ (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that said "review" isn't actually a review, it's just a bare sentence that lists the bands that appear on this album. If it was a proper review, we would have one reliable source and that's still not enough. But in this state, we have no reliable sources at all. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ras Dva. An article has been created for the label, which at the moment seems to meet notability criteria based on some sources that are mentioned on its talk page. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Gulmohar (2008 film)

Gulmohar (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: None. External links: Two reviews, lacking notability. So it is essentially unsourced. Kolma8 (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The Don (2006 film)

The Don (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: Unsourced. Kolma8 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - completely fails NFILM Spiderone 18:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hobby Hill Farms, Virginia

Hobby Hill Farms, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Despite what the article says, this is actually a neighborhood of the city of Richmond, Virginia, which is where the coordinates point; the county is in a different part of the state. Neighborhoods and subdivisions don't get the same assumption of notability that standalone communities do, and there seems to be very little out there about Hobby Hill Farms at any rate. Newspapers.com turns up a lot of real estate listings from the early 1960s but nothing in the way of actual coverage, and searching elsewhere turns up close to nothing except for GNIS mirrors and real estate sites. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. There are over 2,000 pages in Category:Unincorporated communities in Virginia mass-produced like this one (and those in California) with only a single useless line sourced to the GNIS. List of unincorporated communities in Virginia is mainly CDPs but a redirect/merge of most of the non-notable Virginia places that have not been improved in the last decade to somewhere would be better than hundreds of individual time-wasting AFDs. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete not every single at some point named way to subdivide a city is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Oatlands, Virginia

Oatlands, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This seems to be a vague locale named from its proximity to Oatlands Plantation; there used to be an Oatlands Mill in the area as well. But I don't see any evidence of an Oatlands town. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. There are over 2,000 pages in Category:Unincorporated communities in Virginia mass-produced like this one (and those in California) with only a single useless line sourced to the unreliable GNIS. List of unincorporated communities in Virginia is mainly CDPs but a redirect/merge of most of the non-notable Virginia places that have not been improved in the last decade to somewhere would be better than hundreds of individual time-wasting AFDs. Reywas92^Talk 20:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Keyvan Ansari

Keyvan Ansari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article moved into draft space twice and created again twice with absolutely no improvement. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG as has no coverage in reliable sources. Spiderone 17:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyvan music

• Delete per nomination — Amkgp 💬 18:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ser! (let's discuss it). 22:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete promotion of a noonnotable musician. Lembit Staan (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NMUSIC and is written very promotionally. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom EPIC STYLE ^{(LET'S TALK)} 02:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SNOW. He has 23 followers on Twitter. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Golmaal Govindam

Golmaal Govindam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

Someone created the repository of ENTIRE Malayalam-language or Malayalam films (List_of_Malayalam_films_of_the_1960s, List_of_Malayalam_films_of_the_1970s, and so on) violating Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The vast majority of the films not meeting the WP:NFILM and WP:GNG and essentially copy-n-pastes from the Malayalam movie databases, such as [[27]].

Now, specifically to this film.

The general WP:NFILM notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Then more specific WP:NFILM:

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.

The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Fails all of the above.

Now let's look at the references:

1. 1 is a database entry.
2. 2 is dead
3. 3 is an announcement of an upcoming movie
4. 4 is a database entry.
5. 5 is a database entry
6. 6 is dead

No reviews.

Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: No reliable sources found for this film. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - evidence suggests NFILM and GNG fail Spiderone 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Kalyanappittannu

Kalyanappittannu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. No references.

Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - completely and utterly fails NFILM Spiderone 22:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sterling Park, Virginia

Sterling Park, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

THe article all but admits that this is one of the earlier subdivisions in the Sterling area. It is utterly undistinguishable from its surroundings now, and things are not helped by the topos, which seem to think it lies in two different locations. But everything says NN neighborhood. Mangoe (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete not a seperately notable place. In Michigan we have avoided this mess by lumping most articles on unincorporated places under the applicable township article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The Convenient Groom

The Convenient Groom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:GNG and WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Just like theatrical films, television films are not automatically entitled to have articles just because their own production studio's self-published directory of their own films technically verifies that the film exists — the notability test is the reception of significant critical attention in the media and/or nominations/wins of notable film or television awards, not just "this topic exists". But there are no notability-supporting reliable sources here, and I'm not finding anything that would bolster the case for inclusion: apart from some bad blogs and corporate press releases, the strongest source I'm finding is a "10 worst Hallmark movies of all time" listicle that gives this film one 90-word blurb of attention, which is not enough all by itself if it's the best we can do. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The film just straight-up fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Chompy Ace 00:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Maya Diederichsen

Maya Diederichsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Only claim to fame is three matches in the W-League. Other than the one source that I added from Yahoo News, there is absolutely no other decent coverage of her. Other than those three appearances, she has spent the rest of her career in the lower tiers of Australian football. Fails WP:GNG significantly.

• [28] [29] [30] - passing mentions all from the same website

• [31] - passing mention in a match report

• [32] - mentioned once Spiderone 15:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Pidichirukku

Pidichirukku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: #1 and #2 are dead. #3 - is a short mixed review; #4 and #5 - movie reviews. Fails significant coverage and notability.

Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep #4 and #5 are full reviews...that passes WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Donaldd23. Ref #1 can be found here, and Ref #2 can be found here. I have no idea if they are reliable or not, but The Hindu is and Rediff.com seems to be? I had trouble seeing #3 at first, but it's archived here, and at 288 words, well over WP:100WORDS, so seems significant enough to me—way more than you'll usually get from Kirkus. -2pou (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, as above. Several nominations for deletion by this user seem incorrect and breach WP:BEFORE - sources appear quite easily once inserted into Google. Neutral Fan (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep passes criteria 1 of WP:NFILM with two national reviews so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Tera Woh Pyar

Tera Woh Pyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As per WP:NOT and WP:V. Just a promotional stunt since master sock User:Patiparmeshwar continuously adding POV to the singer's article. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Patiparmeshwar- Satrar (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: The article looks notable per [33] [34] [35] and [36]. Does not seem to be promotion stunt. Empire AS ^Talk! 15:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Focusing on the article itself, the article content and its 8 references seem reasonable to me. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, if the statistics are to be believed, the music video of this song was viewed 132 million times on YouTube. As far as the question of notability goes, it would not seem to fail on that front. Mar4d (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG with sources indicated by Empire AS. Most of the sources in the article seem to be reliable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, the article contains reliable and adequate sources and is notable. Tahaaleem ^Talk 21:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Pete Ewing

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Pete Ewing
• Articles for deletion/Pete Ewing (2nd nomination)

Pete Ewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Still not notable. Spam from a blocked sockmaster. A short apearance on a soap does not satisfy any notability guide. Claim from last afd of rotation on 3RRR is unsourced, would not satisfy wp:music as it is not national and is not believable as 3RRR does not do rotation like the commercial radio stations do. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Could be a brief mention about the Neighbors item, in that article Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per well reasoned nomination of nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Arappavan

Arappavan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

Someone created the repository of ENTIRE Malayalam-language or Malayalam films (List_of_Malayalam_films_of_the_1960s, List_of_Malayalam_films_of_the_1970s, and so on) violating Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The vast majority of the films not meeting the WP:NFILM and WP:GNG and essentially copy-n-pastes from the Malayalam movie databases, such as [[37]].

Now, specifically to this film.

The general WP:NFILM notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Then more specific WP:NFILM:

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.

The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Fails all of the above.

Now let's look at the references: All three references are the database entries.

Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Arappavan has a significant mention in the Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema published by the British Film Institute. I have looked around and, as "Ara Pavan", it seems to occur frequently on lists of Malayalam films of the 1960s. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Charles Matthews. If it is worth an entry in a print encyclopedia, it is worth a Wikipedia page as similarly discussed in an ad nauseum AFC discussion recently. -2pou (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Per above 2 comments. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ummini Thanka

Ummini Thanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

Someone created the repository of ENTIRE Malayalam-language or Malayalam films (List_of_Malayalam_films_of_the_1960s, List_of_Malayalam_films_of_the_1970s, and so on) violating Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The vast majority of the films not meeting the WP:NFILM and WP:GNG and essentially copy-n-pastes from the Malayalam movie databases, such as [[38]].

Now, specifically to this film.

The general WP:NFILM notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Then more specific WP:NFILM:

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.

The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Fails all of the above.

Now let's look at the references: All three references are the database entries.

Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails NFILM and GNG; sources fail to establish notability Spiderone 16:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Prymrr

Prymrr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fail to see how this musician is notable - they don't appear to have charted, she hasn't had any major acting roles and afaict, no meaningful coverage. The only sources are PR spam, interviews and paid for press pieces. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 13:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as a case of WP:PROMO with promotional sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Erman Baradi

Erman Baradi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable producer, only sources covering this person are contributor pieces/non rs/blackhat SEO and PR. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 13:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Coming Home for Christmas (2017 film)

Coming Home for Christmas (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Found this [[39]] Donaldd23 (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It looks like TheMovieScene is a WP:SPS according to the About page. Basically just a blog. BOVINEBOY2008 15:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails WP FILM. Kolma8 (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom and because it fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Chompy Ace 00:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Hallmark channel churns out a huge number of Christmas related films, there is nothing suggesting this one is independently notable enough to justify a freestanding article.16:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A Christmas Detour

A Christmas Detour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable television film, no significant coverage by independent sources (plenty of SPS reviews but none from notable sources), does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and as it fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Chompy Ace 00:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - another non-notable Hallmark Channel Christmas film Spiderone 11:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Operation Ababeel

Operation Ababeel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This subject appears to be a hoax. A search for "Operation Ababeel" online, including the myriad of news sources, books and military publications, reveals nothing notable or verifiable about this operation or that it was ever planned, other than some obscure Indian references. Not a single reliable Pakistani source is there discussing this preemptive operation. Given the surprising lack of coverage, this should either be deleted outright or redirected to the Siachen conflict explaining its limited references made primarily in Indian sources. Mar4d (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete no RS provided that this planned operation even existed and not even basic details provided. The fact that the See Also section is longer than the content says it all. Mztourist (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete I see no attempt made, not even a hint of it, to present a neutral point of view in this article as per Wikipedia guidelines. WP:NPOV states...'Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.' This article repeats all Indian side's propaganda and point of view with no attempt made to balance it by describing Pakistani point of view or also using Pakistani sources as references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Retain the article: Most of the objections above itself seem biased and loaded with vague and coatail objections. Instead of refuting those one by one above. I went ahead and significantly expanded the article with the reliable, reputed and verifiable official Pakistani Army sources, Indian Army sources as well as 3rd party sources. Feel free to review and further enhance the article. If you are inclined please also create an article on Pakistan's relatively successful Operation Yarmuk for Baltoro range after taking some text from my edits to Ababeel article. I am not the original creator or writer of the text in Operation Ababeel. Wiki bot left a message on my talkpage regarding this deletion discussion, and I ended up enhancing this article created/edited by other editors. I have no other account, I am a long timer IP. Regards. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear 58.182.176.169, thanks for attempting to improve the article. While the Pakistan Army Aviation source makes passing mention of it (three times to be exact) and is a good place to start, it is worth noting that it refers to Ababeel as a military exercise rather than an "operation". This is important to note in the context of the tone of the article, as an exercise usually involves logistical movement and preparedness as opposed to an operation which is geared towards combat. This is an inherent issue that was, and still is, present in the article, such as the infobox and will need to be rectified along with a possible renaming of the article. I would also appreciate if you could provide links and page numbers to some of the references you added, as this was not done (e.g. a reference is made to Musharraf's In The Line of Fire: A Memoir, but there is no page number as to where a reference is made to Ababeel). Please go through WP:CITE to see how to correctly format references. I look forward to seeing you assuage some of these issues. Best, Mar4d (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Siachen conflict.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  Comment Agree with Ameen Akbar's argument above. When a well-sourced (with 97 references) main article on the subject Siachin conflict already exists, there is no need to 'keep' this poorly-written article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per Mar4d. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Tom Stoughton

Tom Stoughton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As far as I can see, he has only had one small role so fails WP:NACTOR. I'm not seeing any evidence that he passes WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO or any other biographical criteria. Spiderone 11:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Child actors have no notability and at the time of me voting the page has only been existing for about 20 minutes. Also fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete None of the sources are even remotely reliable, and a search finds nothing better, so cannot establish WP:GNG notability. As for WP:NACTOR, one might conceivably try to make a case for the large fan base criterion, but let's face it, with a supporting role in a single TV episode the kiddo is hardly Shirley Temple (yet, at least), so fails IMO on that count as well. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete This is an 11-year-old who made a 1 episode apparance in a TV show back when he was 7, this is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Simply not notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

HiPipo Music Awards

HiPipo Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

the topic of this Award Fails Wikipedia Notability rules , almost all the sources on the article are self made sources , some are nothing but crappy website , No significant independent relieble source about this topic , there is No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - The ceremony has received no significant and reliable coverage in its own right, and occasional mentions in sources like New Vision appear to be reprinted press releases. The award is sometimes mentioned in a media article about a winner, but that is second-hand association at best. Otherwise, the ceremony can only be found in its own self-promotions, indicating that winning one of its awards is not particularly prestigious. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A M High School

A M High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable school which fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. JavaHurricane 09:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 09:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 09:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 09:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. JavaHurricane 09:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Elang Bondol Stadium

Elang Bondol Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD - doesn't seem to meet WP:NGEO as a non-notable sports pitch. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to Atang Senjaya Airport - definitely fails WP:GNG so does not warrant its own article Spiderone 09:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

BABY BLUE

BABY BLUE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable group which fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Recreated by the same editor hours after being deleted under A7. This editor possibly has a WP:COI - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Draft:1st.One John B123 (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable and spam. JavaHurricane 09:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree that the sources don't establish notability; might be worth WP:SALT as well Spiderone 11:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - Does not satisfy musical notability criteria. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Quentin Cheng

Quentin Cheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances yet for Penang F.C., as he just joined them and new season is yet to start; his previous clubs were not WP:FPL BlameRuiner (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: Article states that he "plays as a defender for Penang F.C. in the Malaysia Super League". This meets WP:NFOOTBALL as the Malaysia Super League is a listed league at WP:WPF. The notability guideline states Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable. - which he meets. ~RAM (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

And, as I stated on your talk page, he is joining Penang in 2021 so, unless he has access to a time machine, it's literally impossible for him to have played in the Super League. Spiderone 10:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete/draftify - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL; he has never played in a senior international fixture nor has he ever contested a football match between two sides playing in a league listed at WP:FPL. "Plays as a defender for..." is just a typical wording that we use to start an article on a footballer. We would use it even for a footballer who hasn't made an appearance for said club yet. However, since Ram has stated that it's ambiguous/confusing language, I have reworded it to avoid confusion. Any suggestion that he will definitely play for Penang is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. With the state of the world at the moment, we have no idea if the 2021 Super League will even go ahead let alone whether Cheng will get any playing time. These three sources all show that he fails NFOOTBALL [40] [41] [42]. I can find no sources saying that he passes it. Spiderone 10:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Kolma8 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Mouna Raagam (1983 film)

Mouna Raagam (1983 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Then more specific:

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.

The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Fails all of the above.

Now let's look at the references: All three references are the database entries.

Kolma8 (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• What about WP:BEFORE? and a link to the film guideline is sufficient, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - not even close to meeting NFILM or GNG Spiderone 14:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Kokkarakko

Kokkarakko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A film that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." (FAILS)

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.

The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

FAILS on of the above too. Now about the references:

1 - "Kokkarakko". www.malayalachalachithram.com. - not really a reference, but an entry in the Malayalan movie database. Besides of the question of reliability, it shows no notability.

2 - "Kokkarakko". malayalasangeetham.info. - essentially as above, an entry in a database.

3 - "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2 November 2014. - the same; an entry in a database.

None of the references are actually can be used to support any of the criteria above.

I think this article fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

What about WP:BEFORE ? Atlantic306 (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment to judge teh quality of work of the editor of this article please visit his talk page - User_talk:Niajm. Kolma8 (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Nasty comment, this is about the article not the creator Atlantic306 (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails NFILM and GNG; sources fail to establish notability Spiderone 14:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

HiPipo Music Awards

HiPipo Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

the topic of this Award Fails Wikipedia Notability rules , almost all the sources on the article are self made sources , some are nothing but crappy website , No significant independent relieble source about this topic , there is No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - The ceremony has received no significant and reliable coverage in its own right, and occasional mentions in sources like New Vision appear to be reprinted press releases. The award is sometimes mentioned in a media article about a winner, but that is second-hand association at best. Otherwise, the ceremony can only be found in its own self-promotions, indicating that winning one of its awards is not particularly prestigious. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

DragonVale

DragonVale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GNG, and WP:NVG. Chompy Ace 07:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 07:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Significant coverage from reliable sources [43][44][45] is enough to satisy WP:GNG. Lowercaserho (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:NEXIST. Metacritic has several reliable reviews._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] and also this review from a situational WP:VG/RS source. IceWelder [✉] 21:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: "Gamecruft" is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. RS are adequate. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not seeing an article "Dragonvale Captured My Heart and My Wallet in 2011" from Kotaku as meeting the notability threshold, same for slidetoplay.com. 148apps.com. Then again, I don't edit about video games, so maybe these sources meet the standards for that subject. Spudlace (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, GameZebo, Gamasutra, Kotaku and TouchArcade are all reliable sources according to WP:VG/RS, meaning that this article passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep It passes WP:SIGCOV. Needs expansion and more content. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Backflip Studios#Paper Toss: World Tour. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Paper Toss: World Tour

Paper Toss: World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NVG, lots of unreliable sources. Chompy Ace 07:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 07:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Backflip Studios#Paper Toss: World Tour per nom. IceWelder [✉] 20:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to Backflip Studios#Paper Toss: World Tour. This is a needless content fork of a game that isn't notable enough on it's own to warrant an article. It's questionable the game studio that created it even is, but whatever. A merge would still be fine and improve that article/glorified list. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Backflip Studios#Paper Toss. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Paper Toss

Paper Toss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NVG, lots of unreliable sources. Chompy Ace 07:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 07:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge or Redirect to Backflip Studios. The developer's page even has its own section of the game, which currently links to this page. Consider merging most of the important information into the said section. Tóth Péter Bence (talk) 12:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Backflip Studios#Paper Toss per nom. IceWelder [✉] 20:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Tewksbury Mills

Tewksbury Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Never-built mall. Only sources stem from the very beginning, no news since. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, failing WP:NBUILDING. The local newspaper covers the proposed project's announcement. Blog interest only beyond that. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: Heck, you could even call this a failure of WP:CRYSTAL -- nothing but speculation where "dead in the water" was posted a decade ago. Ravenswing 16:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete generally things that do not and never have existed are not notable. There are rare exceptions, but nothing suggests this is one of those.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Spudlace (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Javed Ahmed Tak

Javed Ahmed Tak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The page is a very non-neutral BLP, and it is almost entirely unreferenecd. Much of the article was written by a mostly single-purpose account named Javed Ahmed Tak, so this could be a partial autobiography. In any case, it reads very much like a resume and does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. The article also doesn't seem to establish notability, at least in my opinion. Noahfgodard (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment The award he won, the fourth highest civilian award, has almost all of its recipients with wiki pages. I'm not sure, but the sources listed may mean, along with the award, notability for him Bedfordres (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

What I mean is, does that award confer notability? (Padma Shri) The sources listed were about the award, not him specifically. I may look for ones specifically about him Bedfordres (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bedfordres: You have a good point that the award may be an indication of notability, but as you say, the sources used in the article only mention him briefly. Noahfgodard (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Noahfgodard: For reference. Sorry formatting is not right.

"From Arun Jaitley to Karan Johar: Here's full list of Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, Padma Shri awardees 2020". Deccan Herald. 25 January 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2020.

"Padma Awards announced; posthumous honour for Arun Jaitley, Sushma Swaraj". The Times of India. 26 January 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2020.
"Full list of 2020 Padma awardees". The Hindu. 26 January 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2020.
"जावेद अहमद टाक को पद्म श्री से सम्मानित किया गया". KhabarTak.com (in Hindi). Retrieved 27 January 2020.
"Muslim bhajan singer, 'Langar Baba', Sundarban doctor among Padma award winners". The Times of India. 26 January 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2020.
"Republic Day 2020: Meet The Unsung Heroes Who Have Been Conferred With Padma Awards". Outlook. 26 January 2020. Retrieved 27 January 2020.
"Govt announces Padma Shri Awards 2020: Here is all you need to know about the 21 awardees". Republic TV. 26 January 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2020.

Bedfordres (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed unsorced and maybe copyright violation material to stable version. You may want to look at that as well...Also someone added these as well (changed phrasing).

https://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/opinion/empowering-the-physically-challenged/ https://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/gk-magazine/disabled-discriminated-in-jk/ http://www.subhashchandra.com/news/subhash-chandra-show-travels-to-kashmir-1653/ http://abdnews24.com/pages/posts.php?category=jandk&&postid=2048 Bedfordres (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy keep A padma awardee which is the fourth highest civilian honour in India and clearly passes WP:ANYBIO.Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Faizal batliwala: You may be right, but per WP:ANYBIO, "meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Moreover, 118 people were awarded the Padma Shri this year alone, so it alone should not establish that a subject should be included. Only one source is used in the article which is not simply a list of winners of the award, and this singular source is a short news report in relation to the award, meaning the article probably does not meet the WP:GNG and certainly fails WP:SUSTAINED. My original nomination for deletion had more to do with the article's blatant self-promotion and lack of a neutral point of view than with notability. Bedfordres removed much of the contentious material, for which I am very grateful, but I'm still not inclined to change my position to "keep", given the lingering question of notability/referencing in a BLP and per WP:SUSTAINED. Noahfgodard (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:YOURSELF. Receiving an award (however prestigious) does not guarantee notability, especially for the subject of an apparent autobiography. Miniapolis 21:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Miniapolis: that was the case when the article was first nominated, but I changed it to a version before the autobiographical material was added, so I think it no longer applies. My bad if I misunderstand something. Thanks! Bedfordres (talk)

It's better now, but the subject's notability seems borderline at this time and the page still needs better sourcing (more than a list of Padma Shri recipients). Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 01:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Weak Keep prize recipient. I think there is enough about him or partially about him...https://newzhook.com/story/ramakrishnan-amar-seva-sangam-padma-shri-jammu-kashmir-disabled-javed-ahmed-tak/ Part of it is about him..."It was his PIL that led to the implementation of the Disability Act in Jammu and Kashmir." He was interviewed in Civil Society Online, a magazine. He founded this:http://www.humanitywelfarehelpline.org/history.htm An interview of him:https://www.scoonews.com/news/from-being-shot-in-the-spine-to-opening-an-inclusive-school-padma-shri-javed-ahmad-tak-shares-his-story-with-us-9106 From notability guidlines "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." I'm not sure if the above things mentioned would be secondary sources, and if they're not, would it still be enough for an article? Bedfordres (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep There is very easy info WP:GNG to find about this person on the web. MISSIONgreen=SILVER (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC) MISSIONgreen=SILVER

And that info is ... ? Miniapolis 14:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep easily passes GNG as the person received India's fourth-highest civilian award Padma Shri. DMySon 12:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @DMySon: In what way does that relate to the WP:GNG? The GNG states: that a topic must receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (You quote this on your user page, so I'm sure you're aware of it.) Although the Padma Shri is an important award, it does not establish notability, and not all winners of the award have Wikipedia articles. Tak has received virtually no coverage outside of lists of Padma Shri winners, meaning he does not meet the WP:GNG and certainly fails WP:SUSTAINED. Noahfgodard (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• I just want to clarify that although my reasons have somewhat shifted after cleanup by User:Bedfordres, I am still on the side of Delete as nom. Noahfgodard (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I don't see how its meets notability criteria. Kolma8 (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Model United Nations conferences. No prejudice against merging some of the content, if deemed appropriate. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Chicago International Model United Nations

Chicago International Model United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable high school conference. Fails WP:GNG. Searches turned up literally zero in-depth references from independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources have been provided other than the organization's own website and its parent organization's website. Model United Nations organizations are not inherently notable, and a number of them have been deleted at AfD; see User:Metropolitan90#Model United Nations AfD results for a list of some examples. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - sources fail to establish notability Spiderone 20:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge into Model United Nations in the United States, which appears to be a strong article with good sourcing that could be supplemented with the content of this article - as a matter of fact, the content from here could simply be merged into a section under Model UN by Region - Midwest. This would allow for the useful information to be kept, and there are likely useful references in the bigger and more general article.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Merge per above. Model UN as an institution is important, but there doesn't appear to be anything that sets this particular city's event apart from the template. FalconK (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - based on the structure of the merge target, there really is nothing to merge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge...that is the question. One more pass to review the merge situation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete and Redirect to List of Model United Nations conferences, where it's already mentioned. Oppose a merge to MUN in the United States because there's no indication this MUN organization has done anything significant enough to merit a specific mention in that article. I don't see sigcov in any reliable sources. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Looks like we're not going to get a definitive answer on this, despite multiple relists. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Samantha Brick

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Samantha Brick
• Articles for deletion/Samantha Brick (2nd nomination)

Samantha Brick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page was first nominated in 2012, and the outcome was Delete. It was recreated shortly afterwards (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 19) but the underlying issue remains. She has appeared in Celebrity Big Brother but this alone is not sufficient to demonstrate lasting notability: her only other claim to fame would be her comments about being so attractive that women hate her, but as David Gerard opines on the talk page this would fail BLP1E. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP2E if Celebrity Big Brother is included. Peter James (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm seeing no evidence of wider notability. I would say WP:TOOSOON if it hadn't been years. I remember the "too beautiful" thing from the meme-o-sphere too, but the only thing anywhere near an RS was the Guardian, and even that was a Comment Is Free blog post. Happy to be shown wrong on this, but that would take some good RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - This seems to be one of those situations where certain editors object to the details outlining why a person is a notable subject, remove said details from the article, and then claim, "see, they're not notable enough!" Nick Cooper (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
    • You could bring RS evidence, that'd do the trick. This is a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I've expanded the article a little to include some details of her career prior to CBB, possibly enough for notability? There are a few articles behind the Broadcast magazine paywall which might be useful if anyone has access Piecesofuk (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • These appear to largely be passing mentions of industry movements, rather than evidence of passing WP:JOURNALIST/WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The new material is cobbled-together passing fragments that really don't seem to meet any general or specific notability requirements. There is no good BLP coverage of the sort that a BLP requires. A redirect per onel5969 may also make sense - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per additions by Piecesofuk. Artw (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother (British series 10). Simply not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG for a standalone article, but she is mentioned on the show's target, and that's her biggest claim to fame. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third times the charm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother (British series 10) as advised by Onel. Kolma8 (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep not primarily notable for Celebrity Big Brother, so a redirect would be inappropriate. Peter James (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, after much-extended time for discussion. I further note that there are indeed a substantial number of unplumbed new references to the firm. Some of these are quite unflattering. I recommend improving the article by adding them. BD2412 T 06:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Balch & Bingham

Balch & Bingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The 4th largest. scope_creep^Talk 12:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete- Does not pass WP:NCORP, events are routine for a law firm. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep- This does pass WP:BASIC with independent sources that demonstrate notability.--WondoMathias (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• 'Comment Lets look at the references:

* [54] Company offices page.

* [55] Managing Partner Alan T. Rogers said in a prepared statement. "Judge Martin set the standard for how law should be practiced and clients served. We strive to meet that standard." Fails WP:ORGIND.

* [56] Some non-notable award page. No context.

* [57] "The center of our business was the Alabama Power Co., which moved from Montgomery to Birmingham in 1922," says Harold Williams, a retired partner and resident historian at Balch. "We were created to represent them, and they are still our largest client." Fails WP:ORGIND.

* [58] An obituary for a man who worked there.

* [59] Routine announcement of company merger. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS

* [60] Former Georgia Attorney General Mike Bowers has left Balch & Bingham in Atlanta, where he was a partner for nearly 20 years, for an Athens law firm just 20 miles away from his Jackson County farm. Routine announcement. Likely fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS

* [61] “The attorneys of Presley Burton & Collier have a well-deserved reputation as outstanding lawyers serving tax-exempt and tax-advantaged transactions across the nation,” Alan Rogers, the chairman of Balch & Bingham’s executive committee, said in a statement. fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS

* [62] “The merger with Balch offers our team the opportunity to join a firm with a similar culture and a shared commitment to clients’ successes, while expanding our geographic footprint and allowing us to grow our services with our clients,” said Gresham R. Stoneburner, partner of Stoneburner Berry Glocker Purcell & Greenhut, in the release Press-release.

* [63] “Our growth has always been driven by the needs of our clients. With their support and the increasing demand for our services in Houston and throughout Texas, we are providing additional infrastructure and support to our lawyers and practices that currently exist in the market,” said Balch managing partner Stan Blanton. Fails WP:ORGIND. It is a press-release.

So out of that lot, not a single references is valid. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL14, WP:DEL4 and WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 17:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep When nominating a page for deletion, one must also do a Google search and other searches to see there are more news sources. A Google news search brings up over 11 pages of results for this company and I have verified that there are plenty of other mentions. Although many are passing mentions, a company of this caliber, being in the news so much, certainly passes notability guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Throw them up so we can take a look at them. scope_creep^Talk 08:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It’s a 100 year old law firm this falls in line with WP:MULTSOURCES. It is difficult to find an depth profile since it has been through mergers and acquisitions and those related stories should count too, but here are some I found:

* [64] Mother Jones

* [65] The Birmingham News

* [66] Washington Post

* [67] The Birmingham News--WondoMathias (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: Reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. I do not believe the sourcing is strong enough to satisfy WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep They are notable. Might want to add a notable cases section as opposed to just a history of ownership.--TerrellTrevon (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I hate voting from an IP, but I’m a week away from my computer still and I find this one bothersome. The two Alabama Today articles posted in Wanda’s comment above are clearly independent of the firm, plus the Washington Post and a slew of Birmingham Business Journal articles show sustained coverage over many years. Meets the criteria of WP:NCORP and WP:Basic. 68.194.60.216 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The above user is another WP:SPA who has not made a single edit to wikipedia, apart from this one, which indicates the user has a WP:COI. scope_creep^Talk 10:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No, as they said, they're a longtime Wikipedia editor who's away on a Christmas vacation and hasn't got a computer they're comfortable putting their login and password details on. Been there, done that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Riphouse 151: Could've Been's & Wanna Be's

Riphouse 151: Could've Been's & Wanna Be's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Sources in the article are a primary source and IMDB. WP:BEFORE turns up mostly forums, blogs, and sundry other unreliable sources, along with a few passing mentions. Apparent COI, as this was created by a user with the same username as the movie's distributor. Previously prodded in 2010 (removed by page creator), so taking this here. Doesn't seem notable in any way. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If the band would have their article I would say redirect, but since they don't, I say delete. By the way, I looked the band up - they don't look notable either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero evidence this film or its director is notable. I proposed deletion of Peter O'Brien (filmmaker), after altering all of the contributors, but I was rebuffed and accused of being a spammer; feel free to change that to an AfD. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Donaldd23 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sycolin, Virginia

Sycolin, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Loudoun County, Virginia seems t be in better shape WRT dubious placenames, but this one isn't proving to be anything more than a locale, if that. Union Church, which is still there, shows up on the maps from the beginning, but it was and is an isolated chapel. Sycolin appears relatively late, a bit to the south of the church, at a T intersection with a very narrow lane. The thing is, there's almost nothing there: a few houses, at least one of considerable age, but nothing that says village. And that's also what the topos show. Searching mostly gets hits for the creek of the same name, where someone did something in the Civil War, guaranteeing bucketloads of irrelevant hits. Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• 'Delete Found a reference to a home demonstration club of Sycolin here, as well as a couple references to someone "from" Sycolin being killed in a car crash. Everything else I'm finding is for the creek or Sycolin Road, except for one hit about a Sycolin tribe of Native Americans. I'm seeing no evidence there was ever a legally recognized community here, so WP:GEOLAND is not met. WP:GNG certainly is not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete No sign of a notable or legally recognized community. –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Kokkarakko (1983 film)

Kokkarakko (1983 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An article about a Tamil film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search under both the English and the Tamil titles failed even to turn up the plot. The best I found was this passing mention. I was unable to determine whether or not it has any relationship to the 1995 Malayalam film Kokkarakko. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This film, released in 1983 and the 1995 Malayalam film are two different projects. The 1983 film was much noticed for its songs as well as the lead pair Mahesh and Ilavarasi. The film released in pre internet era won't have much references, but will try to find those and update it. Rajeshbieee (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete No indication this meets WP:GNG nothing in the article, nothing found on google to support notability. Jeepday (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - The film released in pre internet era won't have much internet references, but I have updated two references. The film was well noticed for his music.Rajeshbieee (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. I don't buy the rationale of Rajeshbieee. We need to demonstrate that it meets the below:

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.

The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Now about the references:

The first one looks like a blog entry and mentions the subject of this article in passing. So the reference is NOT really a reference and should be removed.

The second reference mention the movie when listing all the movie made by the director. "Films like Kozhi Koothu, Kokkarakko, Gitanjali, Ananthakkummi, Rajathirajah were made by Ilayaraja Kudumbatha." So, fails too.

I think this article fails all of the above. Unless we can find any evidence that it doesn't. So far there is none.

Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

A link to the policy is enough, you don't have to regurgitate it on tens of AFD discussions Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - we would need to see references giving this film more than a passing mention for it to meet notability criteria; since this lacks evidence of any archive listings, reviews or awards, I would have to agree with deletion for now Spiderone 10:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - The film was released in pre internet era, therefore won't have much internet references, but I have updated one more reference.Rajeshbieee (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rajeshbieee: I think you already voted once on this on 17 December, see above. Kolma8 (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I've struck the duplicate vote Spiderone 11:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I see consensus to delete here. Most of the keep votes note that their stance is weak, and nobody has disputed the close analysis of the sources, after which all further !votes have been to delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Daisy the Great

Daisy the Great (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BAND on all 12 counts. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets criteria 1, 4, of WP:BAND. RHirsch1770 (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet notability guidelines at WP:BAND. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I found very little that constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources, the best seeming to be a brief Allmusic bio, the Refinery29 article, and a piece from Popdust. None of the other criteria of WP:NMUSIC appear to be satisfied. --Michig (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It is just barely keep worthy as do I agree with the reasons given of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I was seriously going to nominate as delete per the aforementioned criteria within WP:BAND (not least points number two and four). Weakly, I could argue point twelve, too. I suppose Internet entries such as this one make me weakly (and I mean weakly) merit a keep status, even though the article still needs work if we opt to keep.--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Meets criteria 1, 4, of WP:BAND, but barely. But still within the Keep of WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• delete the keeps here are utterly unconvincing. I see no evidence they meet anything from NBAND, nor do they have coverage to satisfy any other criteria. Small time blogs, medium pieces and listings are not adequate. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Looking through all of the blogs in the sources, I don't think WP:GNG has been met due to lack of significance or independence (which negates NBAND #1 and #4). The band could be notable soon, though - if there's better sourcing don't hesitate to recreate it. SportingFlyer T·C 14:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BAND - Kolma8 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets the WP:GNG. Probably also 1 and 4 of WP:BAND. gidonb (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep I feel like they pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Evaluating the sources one by one: 1: , promotional and a considerable part of it is interview, violating WP:IS. 2: , just a listing on their label's website, not in-depth coverage and not independent. 3: , Medium.com is user-generated. 4: Same source as 1. 5: , leaning . Seems to be a reliable music website and coverage is more than a trivial mention, but not quite WP:SIGCOV, imo. 6: , leaning . Reliable website but seems to be routine coverage of a video and the author has a connection to the band, which fails WP:IS. 7: Same source as 2. 8: , it's an interview, fails WP:IS. 9: Just a promotional listing. 10:, probably WP:UGC as a blog, also just a promotional listing. Disagree that this source satisfies WP:BAND #4 as the tour only receives a trivial mention. 11, 12: Interviews, fail WP:IS. 13: Same source as 6. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 06:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete based on my evaluation of the sources above, sorely lacking in independent sources, perhaps a bit WP:TOOSOON. I did a pseudo-WP:BEFORE and found nothing that would satisfy notability guidelines. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 06:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete — doesn’t satisfy WP:NBAND. Celestina007 (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete No seeing how any of the sources meet the requirements for WP:NBAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 07:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Needs more reliable, independent, secondary source coverage than Nylon and R29 for us to write an article on this topic that does it justice without regressing into original research. No additional hits in my custom search of vetted arts/music/cultural sources. Beyond the GNG, that there is so much confusion over NBAND #1 and 4 is telling. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Pasquale Di Nuzzo

Pasquale Di Nuzzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was previously PRODed and deleted as non notable actor. He still does not satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR and also fails WP:GNG as sources cited in the article are all YouTube and Instagram links which are not considered reliable. Moreover, Google search of him brings up blog sources, wedding announcement, and no in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources was found. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep  When I search the web a lot of his sources are in Italian, but other then that He seems to meet WP:GNG notability by having significant news coverage. WEPrism222 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC) WEPrism222 (talk)

@WEPrism222: Thanks for your participation. Could you please provide any three best sources that show he has in-depth significant coverage.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Most of the references on the article are YouTube and blogs. The only thing that gets him close to meeting [[WP:NACTOR is the part in Soy Luna, but that alone is not enough. Jeepday (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I'm inserting a GIF of a cute boy for User:Bearian to say "Delete!" Missvain (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Schnipper

Schnipper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Surname page listing exactly zero people with the surname, because there simply are no notable people with this surname. The page also provides no information about the surname that might make it notable. The cited source (Namespedia) is not reliable, but if it is to be believed, fewer than 250 people worldwide have this surname, which doesn't help its case either. Lennart97 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

*Delete - zero evidence of notability; the page cannot be turned into a disambiguation either as there are currently no articles on people with this surname Spiderone 20:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. There is a music journalist Matthew Schnipper (according to searching Wikipedia) and there is de:Hans-Jürgen Schnipper, but we don't need a disambig page at the moment and we don't have any reliable information about the name. —Kusma (t·c) 17:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - there's a marginally notable chain of burger joints in NUC with this name; I added five cites. FWIW, I'm a fan. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bearian: If the chain of burger joints is indeed notable, it should have its own article, being Schnipper's. If this article is about the German surname (which it currently purports to be), then it's strange to dedicate it to a fast food chain instead - either the chain is notable enough for its own article, or it's not. Lennart97 (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If I could insert a gif here, I would insert the cute girl asking, "Why not both?" There are at least three people with this name who are or could be notable, as well as the burger chain. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, there's still a difference between 'could be' and 'are', of course. I think this page only serves a use (as a disambiguation page, that is) if we have at least two articles about notable people with the name Schnipper and/or the burger chain. As long as those articles don't exist, their notability is not established. But that's just my opinion.

@Spiderone: and @Kusma: you voted delete before Bearian's addition to the article. How do you feel about the current version? Lennart97 (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Lennart97, I don't think this page should be a disambiguation style page if we have nothing to point readers to. So either the page should be deleted or repurposed for the burger chain (and then moved to a more appropriate title). —Kusma (t·c) 23:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Schnipper's and reappropriate the article accordingly. I'm still not convinced that the German surname warrants an article but we can always create a disambiguation later if needed. Spiderone 13:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Seems a rather useless page. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: page does not serve as a proper disambiguation page until an article about the restaurant franchise is created. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Lenton

Andrew Lenton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm doubtful about the notability of this climate scientist. The article text does not not make a good case - this is a plain CV drop, based mostly on primary publications. Senior Research Scientist at CSIRO is a responsible role but not any kind of directorial position. Cites are topped by a few very high numbers, but the top four are data release papers, which automatically get referenced by anyone who works with current data of the relevant type. Overall I'm seeing neither personal notability nor sufficient recognition of impact on the field here. - I'm not too hawkish on pruning scientist biographies though, so please have a look. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• KeepNeutral. Data release or not, the GS cites are high enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. The BLP could be better written. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC).
• Very weak delete. While the GS citations are high at first glance, that's mostly due to papers with an extremely high number of coauthors and Lenton as middle author. There's a paper with a high number of coauthors and him as first author with 163 citations, and then several on this level. But as climate science appears to be an extremely high citation field, I'm skeptical as to whether this is enough. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Since it sounds like the high citation but long author list papers may be a factor in a number of folks decisions this time, I recalculated the subject's h-index using only papers listed on google scholar with 10 or fewer authors (19) or papers with 10 or fewer authors and the subject in the first or last position of the author list (14). I'm not sure what to conclude about those numbers since I don't have a good baseline for comparison to other scientists using similar criteria. Frankly I was hoping recounting with these criteria would come out above 30 or below 10, which might have been more informative. Having done the calculations it seemed worth sharing them though. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your work in tackling this difficult issue. It has sometimes been proposed that the citations of each paper should be divided by the number of authors to get a figure of merit. The database companies have this information but don't provide it. I think an h-index of 19 is enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Author order indicates little as it is so variable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC).

My impression here is that authorship in these institutional/national data release papers may conflict with the spirit of why we look at citation numbers. We use them as a heuristic to gauge the author's impact on the field - how many people have found this author's work worth referring to? For an annual data compendium, that seems misapplied; referents are basically citing the most current database release, not the personal contribution of whoever helms the release. Hence my inclination to not give much weight to these citation numbers. Haven't come across this particular problem before, admittedly. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is quite correct. This is a problem (what is the individual contribution of a member of a large and productive research group?) that crops up on a regular basis and I have not seen any plausible way to deal with it proposed. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC).

Myself, I'm looking for evidence that the subject has themself contributed something with high impact. I mostly ignore massively coauthored papers for this reason, unless it looks like the subject had a leading role in the paper. (Though certainly "massively" depends somewhat on the balance between number of authors versus number of citations.) So Elmidae, helming the data release likely should grant some notability, but it looks like the role of the current subject in the highly cited papers was smaller than what one might describe as "helming". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see single-author papers, but have not found any yet. Some more authoritarian research institutions may discourage them. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Change vote. While independent achievement may exist the sources are not yet enough to confirm it. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC).

• Weak Delete per nom and a very good discussion above. Kolma8 (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Dynamic Trial 7

Dynamic Trial 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article on an obscure unreleased game from an obscure developer that fails WP:N. The majority of the sources are Tumblr fan blogs and interviews that count as primary sources. Though the article's lead claims it was previewed in a few magazines, there's absolutely nothing here that proves it. MobyGames and Web Archive turn up with nothing. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep - I am sorry but your statement about the game not being previewed in magazines is completely wrong. There are references of Dynamic Trial 7 being previewed, talked about and showcased at trade shows already in place such as Beep! MegaDrive, Game Machine, Micom BASIC Magazine, Gamest, Shooting Gameside and the Arcade Game Classics book. Any reader can see them at the bottom of the article's references section. MobyGames only mentions games that were actually released, by the way. I stand by my decision, even if the page gets deleted for such reason... Roberth Martinez (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• • All of those are just announcements or trivial mentions, they don't offer any actual critical commentary. Give me significant coverage, not from Tumblr blogs or sites of dubious reliability, but from magazines or other sources that preview this game in-depth. None of the sources here have that. You can't stand here and tell me "it's notable" without giving me the why. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 05:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I've done my research and the Tumblr account belongs to Eric "ShouTime" Chung, who has helped M2 multiple times and whose name can be seen at the development support section of ESP.Ra.De Psy's credits page at MobyGames [68]... Roberth Martinez (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Rated C-Class in WikiProject Video games. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • What does that have to do with anything? Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @Cupper52: Do you want to try again with a new rationale? Project rating systems usually only really measure how much is present in the article, is usually outdated by years, and does not evaluate for notability. I mean this with all due respect, you may want to reconsider your rationale. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: C-Class articles are said to be in the top 18% of accepted submissions on AfC. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• And that assessment rating was added by the article creator himself, and this did not go through AFC. Not that it needed to; the creator is an experienced editor. Still doesn’t address notability concerns, the crux of this discussion. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can show me something other than WP:ROUTINE coverage of the subject. That reliable sources published something is good. That it’s essentially “news coverage” is not. Sources about the game’s development could help greatly with this, but otherwise, I draw parallels between this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Days to Vegas (2nd nomination). Red Phoenix ^talk 16:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per Red Phoenix's analysis. @Cupper52: Class ratings are user-made and neither prove nor disprove notability. The argument technically fails WP:USERG. IceWelder [✉] 15:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Utpal Kumar Singh

Utpal Kumar Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No sources outside of appointment announcement. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - sources fail to establish notability Spiderone 14:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kirito (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Elle (pronoun)

Elle (pronoun) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article was recently deleted in an Afd from eswikipedia. The reasons for its deletion were that it was an original research with a promotional text on the use of neologism. The article is a translation of that eswikipedia version with all those problems that led to its deletion. Sources do not show relevance for example reference 7 does not cover at all what the section on its use mentions in fact everything is an assumption because the source does not speak anything that and besides that it is an unreliable source. The History section does not speaks neologism but about non-sexist language and there is a part that tries to promote the word and its use. While other parts of the article are presented as a news report. This neologism has been rejected by the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) and its use is almost non-existent. The subject evidently does not pass WP:NEO, WP:PROMO, WP:NPOV. Kirito (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. If an article about a Spanish word was just deleted two days ago in the Spanish Wikipedia, it's very unlikely that the word is notable enough for an article in the English Wikipedia. Even if the pronoun "elle" were accepted in Spanish, the topic would be better covered as a brief mention in Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns; the issues this word is intended to address are similar to those in some other languages, including English. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In any event, if this article is kept, it would need to be moved to Elle (Spanish pronoun), because "elle" has been a pronoun for a long time -- just not in Spanish. It's the French word for "she". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As a second choice, merge to Gender neutrality in Spanish. I wasn't aware of that article until XOR mentioned it below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• KEEP. This gender neutral pronoun is gaining traction in Latin America. It has been explained and used in films, academic articles, and crrently in every day discourse. The title of the article can be changed to Elle_(Spanish gender neutral pronoun) to avoid any confusion. RachelWex (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• comment The call has gone out on Twitter[69] encouraging followers to post "keep" here. There's some sort of template that can go at the top of the page for this sort of thing, I just don't know what it is. Schazjmd (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• clear keep -- long complicated, political process in asserting that there is another gender in appellation in Spanish -- notable just for the fact that its been created as a political act of commentary -- sources support that -- its similar to any number of LGBTQ terms that have complicated political discourse in English. Agree with RachelWex on renaming, Sadads (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep (probably renamed) or merge to Gender neutrality in Spanish. There's enough English-language coverage and commentary that writing about it would not be a problem [70][71][72]. Wikipedias in different languages have different inclusion standards, and whether articles are kept or deleted on one isn't generally informative either way about whether they should be kept or deleted on another. XOR'easter (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The closing of the Spanish-language AfD says in part (my translation):

We cannot accept something that the Real Academia de la Lengua (Royal Academy of the Spanish Language) has not allowed. [...] It seems paradoxical that we are, on the one hand, adhering to the RAE standards, but on the other, in this case we turn our backs on it.

In other words, the closer's rationale seems to relate to es-Wikipedia policy on standard Spanish language. As such, that AfD might not be as relevant as it appears to this one. Cnilep (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. I can't follow the Spanish Wikipedia deletion discussion, so I don't know what threshold is used on that project. Some wikis have much higher notability thresholds than the English Wikipedia. However, on this project the WP:GNG applies and we don't put any weight at all on whether a word is 'officially' a word, recognised by the guardians and gatekeepers of the language (mainly because English does not have this concept.) Id add this, this and this to the list of sources that cover the topic. It's also disappointing to see AfD nominations made when it appears the proposer hasn't actually done a simple Google to check whether there are sources. The Land (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep The issue is not wether this is a dictionnary entry : gender neutral pronouns are being disussed in virtually every languages and there are sources attesting it.Plus there are sources in English, showing that the notability goes beyond the spanish speaking areas, which demonstrates the notoriety of the word. I see no concrete reasons to follow the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE) as mentionned in es-wiki, we rely on sources, what can be noted in the article is this instition's position regarding the word, provided there are sources. We dont rely here on en-wiki on RAE to make notability decisions, Nattes à chat (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The question is whether we should have separate articles about each of the gender neutral pronouns in other languages, rather than covering them in articles about gender neutrality in language. (For comparison, the disambiguation pages Él and Ella don't even mention that those are the Spanish pronouns for "he" and "she" respectively.) This article explains that the uses of the pronoun "elle" are "To refer to a person who does not identify with only the male or female gender ... To refer to a group of people that contain more than one gender ... To refer to a generic individual ... [and] To refer to someone you do not know without assuming their gender." It's likely that there are, or will be, proposed gender-neutral pronouns in French, Italian, and other languages -- and the uses of those new pronouns will be exactly the same as the gender-neutral pronoun for Spanish. Hence, rather than having a separate encyclopedia article for each pronoun, the pronouns should be covered in appropriate articles about the general topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per sources referenced by XOR'easter and those already in the article. Seems to pass WP:GNG to me. I don't speak Spanish, but Google Translate of the AfD there seems to suggest that (a) the non-endorsement of the RAE for the word was given weight (as Cnilep has already noted) and (b) reliable sources discussing said non-endorsement were discounted from being considered reliable sources about the word itself (Las tres primeras y la décima referencias van sobre lo que se comenta arriba: la postura de la RAE. Es decir sobre cómo el neilogismo no está reconocido)—unfortunately, there's no link to which those sources were prior to deletion. Neither of those arguments would hold water in an AfD on en.wiki. However, it does look like the content here is indeed a direct translation of the Spanish: does that create any copyright issues, if the contributors to the page on es.wiki can no longer be seen? YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 14:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to comment, since there seems to have been canvassing going on, that I saw this through a delsort page on my watchlist, and was not aware of canvassing until I read the arguments above. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I honestly didn't expect this to happen when the afd was opened. See this[73] and then a user appears who created the frwikipedia version. This distorts the process. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NPOV is important. There are many neologisms even in Spanish about this and they do not have an article, I would understand if the salvageable information is merged in Gender neutrality in Spanish because it would encompass all of this. Kirito (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but we do have articles on words and sayings when it is possible to write about them encyclopedically (one memorable example). XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, per YorkshireLad. The deletion debate on eswiki itself was contentious and gender-neutral pronouns are clearly more notable than run-of-the-mill dictionary words. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This debate is distorted. There is no reason to continue if a canvassed was sent and weird things happened. Withdrawal nomination. Kirito (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sarmad Sindhi

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Sarmad Sindhi
• Articles for deletion/Sarmad Sindhi (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Sarmad Sindhi (3rd nomination)

Sarmad Sindhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. One source is not WP:significant coverage. Google searches not finding any other significant coverage. noq (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. noq (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I just checked the existing references at the article. It already has 3 working references including Dawn newspaper. Needs cleanup which I will do in the morning and also will add more sources. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Two short bits from Dawn. A couple of gossip sites and a blog - not really significant coverage. noq (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

COMMENT This article is much improved now. 3 references from reliable sources were added – two tributes to him on his death anniversary by Dawn (newspaper) in 2017 and 2018 plus a death anniversary tribute to him in 2019 by Radio Pakistan website where he used to sing.

Also cleaned up the article to give it a neutral tone, removed all unsourced content and made it a stub so other people may add to it as they find more sources. Added 6 new categories. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I bet the subject is notable if folks do more research and work in non-English sources. Even just the number of YouTube videos of him singing is overwhelming. I even found TikTok videos of people singing his songs. So, clearly he's well known, just not in English. I'm just frustrated by being unfamiliar with what are popular, reliable sources in Sindi and Urdu. Are there any editors available who can read/write those languages who can help? Missvain (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I did a bit of digging and he has an article in Sindhi Wikipedia. Now, I know that isn't enough for keep, but, note the two sources. There is a digital Encyclopedia of Sindhi culture and he has an entry. Now, the second source is unreliable - it's a message board. But, the fact that people talk about him and praise his work upon his death, again, shows that he matters in Sindhi culture. I also did a Google Books search and found him discussed in in the book "Transition to Democracy in Pakistan: 1985-88". The author talks about him being a "famous singer of Sindhi poetry" in the 1980s and that his work was inspiring.[74]. I searched for his name and the "journal" and found some more things that lean towards him being notable, just not in English sources. He gets a mere mention in this journal article from the Karoonjhar Research Journal and is called a "famous singer" alongside other singers. I also just found this article - "Sarmad Sindhi Remembered On His 23rd Death Anniversary" at Sindh Courier. It's unlike me to suggest keep for an article in which I'm struggling to find sources, but, I really sincerely believe that he is famous in Pakistan and in Sindh culture. We just don't have many English language sources because that's not where he's famous. If someone who spoke Sindh could do some digging, we'd have the sources we need. Missvain (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In light of Missvain's comments, relisting to enlist more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Perspective Getting

Perspective Getting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:ESSAY on a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM sourced entirely to primary research, virtually all of which is written by or with Nicholas Epley. The only paper I saw on Scholar that's about this topic (with Epley as one of the authors)—doi:10.1037/pspa0000115—has 70 cites. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: Your WP: NEOLOGISM claims are faulty as the definition of "neologism" per Wikipedia's own criteria is that "little or no usage in reliable sources." Firstly, Epley appears to be a "reliable source" in most common usages of the term. Secondly, several of the sources cited in the article are jointly written by Elizabeh Majka and Haotian Zhou, undermining your argument that Epley is the only one who has used the term. Rather than deletion, this article would be a good candidate for further editing as the issue continues to develop. Peacekeepurwar (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• Peacekeepurwar, The following passage in WP:NEOLOGISM is the most relevant for my purposes: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction) (emphasis in original). My concern is that this term is not used by reliable secondary sources, discussing the primary sources upon which the article is based. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• @AleatoryPonderings: I would argue the page does cite reliable sources that speak to the concept of directly getting information about another's perspective outside of those that explicitly use the term (i.e. doi:10.1037/a0020938 doi:10.1177/0146167209350326 doi:10.1177/1948550614559650 doi:10.1177/0146167213493188 doi:10.1177/1948550617728995). Although I agree the concept may be esoteric, the psychological salience of the concept as an approach towards interpersonal understanding remains. WP:NEOLOGISM also mentions In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. Another alternative to deletion would therefore be titling the article differently to better reflect the psychologically salient concept of directly getting information about another's perspective; this would of course require additional reframing throughout the article. LM14840 (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• LM14840: My concern is not that the concept is esoteric. It's that the article constitutes original research. We also already have an article on perspective-taking so using this article as a springboard for one on that general topic seems unwarranted. As for the sources you have provided that are not connected to Nicholas Epley:

• I do not have access to doi:10.1037/a0020938.
• doi:10.1177/0146167209350326 does not use the phrase "perspective getting".
• doi:10.1177/1948550614559650 does not use the phrase "perspective getting".
• doi:10.1177/0146167213493188 does not use the phrase "perspective getting".
• doi:10.1177/1948550617728995 does not use the phrase "perspective getting".

AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• AleatoryPonderings: Yes, I do understand the concern and it is an important one. It seems to me that the concern is with the term 'perspective getting' as a coined term for the social psychological process of directly getting information about another's perspective - which psychologically relevant sources speak to without the explicit use of the term 'perspective getting' (some of which are mentioned above). This is the exact situation mentioned in WP: NEOLOGISM In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. The concern brings up the important point that 'no accepted short-hand term exists,' because to be considered an accepted short-hand term in Wikipedia, there must be secondary sources that explicitly engage the short-hand term. I argue the process of getting direct interpersonal information is a notable, psychologically salient, topic that is well-documented in reliable sources. The process of directly getting information about another's perspective is fundamentally different from the process of inferring another's perspective by thinking about that other person's point of view (which is perspective taking): the former is a bottom-up cognitive process whereas the latter is a top-down cognitive process. The social implications of this fundamental difference are well-documented in previously cited sources, those that explicitly use the term 'perspective getting' to refer to the process of getting direct interpersonal information as well as those that do not. The differences between these two interpersonal processes are particularly salient in the fields of social psychology and social cognition, making them importantly distinct general topics. For these reasons, it would not be intellectually appropriate to consider these two approaches towards interpersonal understanding the same or mention them in the same Wikipedia article (if the suggestion is to add this information to the perspective-taking article). I would still suggest a reframing of this article to generally speak about the social psychological process of getting direct interpersonal information - perspective getting's formal use as a term describing this process would still be mentioned, but not be the focus. LM14840 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• LM14840, Again, the issue is that we require sources that are both reliable and secondary to establish the notability of a term or the concept it denotes. As far as I can see, the additional sources you provided are about the general idea of bottom-up versus top-down processing, not about perspective-getting in particular. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• AleatoryPonderings: Right, apologies for that, I wanted to cite the general ideas I was referring to. Overall, my thinking was that the previously mentioned sources that speak to the social effects/implications of getting direct interpersonal information about a person's perspective, but do not explicitly use the coined term 'perspective getting' to refer to this process, serve as evidence of the concept's psychological salience and notability. For example:

• doi:10.1177/1948550617728995 investigates the impact of direct assessment on the accurate measure of racial attitudes, revealing that the best way to accurately understand a person's racialized perspective is to directly inquire about them - which speaks to the process of getting perspective via direct inquiry.
• doi:10.1177/0146167209350326 investigates the effect of similar experience on empathy and interpersonal understanding, revealing that directly experiencing the same situation as another person leads to greater empathy and interpersonal understanding - which speaks to the process of directly getting perspective via simulation.
• doi:10.1177/0146167213493188 investigates the effect of directly experiencing the same pain as another on the accuracy of pain detection, revealing that directly experiencing the same pain as another leads to more accurate understanding of that person's pain as well as greater empathy towards that person - which speaks to the process of directly getting perspective via simulation.

• AleatoryPonderings: In this case, research explicitly naming the process of getting direct interpersonal information about another as 'perspective getting' can be thought of as secondary research synthesizing, interpreting, and commenting on research describing this process (like the research discussed above) - which also happens to produce original research about that process (i.e. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02096, doi:10.1037/pspa0000115, doi:10.1177/0956797616687124).
• AleatoryPonderings: However, if the connection between research along the lines of the research I mentioned above and the concept of getting direct interpersonal information about another's perspective is not explicit enough, I can see how that could create a problem in terms of the concept having its own page. If so, I'd like to revisit the idea of integrating this information into the existing perspective taking page: I was recently advised that you can create a 'related constructs/concepts' section on an existing page where information about different but related concepts that do not have their own page can live. I, of course, do not want to merge any information until consensus is reached on this page. LM14840 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Based on the cited sources, this topic appears to meet WP:GNG, so I suggest improving rather than deleting. Alternately merging into perspective-taking per WP:PRESERVE could be another alternative. (t · c) buidhe 02:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, What is your take on the WP:OR issues that I raised when I nominated this article for deletion? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

WP article scopes are based on topics, not terms. As long as there is a coherent topic that we can identify—as appears to be the case, see above—then it is simply a question of what title the article should go under which is decided at RM/merge discussion rather than AfD. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional feedback and for relisting the page for more thorough discussion of options. If others agree the page should remain its own page, perhaps "Getting Direct Interpersonal Information about Another's Perspective (Social Psychology)" or "Direct Interpersonal Information on Perspective (Social Psychology)" would be appropriate titles (?) If the general sentiment is to merge this page with the perspective taking page, I think the perspective getting information can live in a "Related Constructs" subsection at the end of the page. Thoughts/concerns/responses? LM14840 (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete — Wikipedia should not have an entry called "Perspective Getting" because that is not a "thing" attested to by sources. That title doesn't pass WP:V. Those sources could be used elsewhere, but an admin should delete the title "Perspective Getting". Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and levivich, and the fact that it's bullshit. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Levivich. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sheila Bynum-Coleman

Sheila Bynum-Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails notability under WP:NPOL as a failed candidate. A claim in the article that she was the first Black woman to be appointed to the Virginia Board for Contractors doesn't seem enough. There is WP:BLP1E coverage in the media which, again, is not notable. The clear risk is that the article will facilitate the promulgation of the BLP1E material if the article is not struck first for the NPOL fail. Tagishsimon (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tagishsimon (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. No pass of WP:GNG. If kept, the discreditable material here[75] will have to be included for balance, although it is missing from the current version of the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom, and consistent with the consensus on unelected politicians that we should require coverage of the subject's notability above what would be expected for someone in their position; the only coverage that is beyond the scope of what you would expect here is 1E coverage that does not establish encyclopedic notability. - Astrophobe (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Even when a candidate has garnered national attention, the threshold for including failed political candidates is a high bar. I don’t believe we’re in that territory here and I don’t see other points of notability—all the coverage seems to relate to her candidacy. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete The Virginia Board of Contractors is not especially notable - I'm not even sure where it is in the hierarchy of state government, so it can't be very high. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete the nominator puts the issue succinctly. Possibly (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet notability standards for politicians and the coverage isn't anything beyond routine political coverage. And the BLP1E issue also doesn't bring notability and it is also just something negative, so would probably violate BLP rules as it is. If the event becomes more notable in the future, then an article on the event itself would perhaps be warranted, but not on this person. Silverseren^C 05:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per WP:SNOW Spiderone 14:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep and move. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Chapter 61

Chapter 61 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The term "Chapter 61" yields a wide variety of results, and none of the search results are from independent secondary sources (and not amy of them are about the Massachusetts law for that matter). Article contains no citations, only one external link to the law books. The subject evidently does not pass WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to Chapter 61 (Massachusetts). I was able to find a webpage and detailed report written by UMass Amherst. The taxpayer's guide and Forest Tax Program website might also provide useful information. These sources help demonstrate notability. Edge3 (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Edge3: Unfortunately, the taxpayer's guide and the Forest Tax Program website do not establish notabilty because they are primary sources. If you took the article from the Mass lawbooks that would be the same thing. Since the sources were prepared by the Massachusetts state government, they cannot establish notability in themselves (even with UMass articles - which were prepared by specialists [in that state, who work with state law]). I would urge that you reconsider your vote. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The reports by UMass Amherst / UMass Extension count as independent and secondary sources, in my opinion, because public universities still have some degree of independence from the government. I'm open to considering other perspectives, but I'll also add that we don't cast "votes". My bolded recommendation ("keep and rename") is merely for the convenience of other editors, and the reasoning behind my comments is more important. See WP:VOTE. Edge3 (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course, you are correct that AFD is WP:NOTVOTE. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Taxation in Massachusetts and expand with content from the other articles in Category:Taxation in Massachusetts, which currently has no corresponding primary article (compare Taxation in Missouri). BD2412 T 05:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  I would support this move, in addition to my recommended renaming to Chapter 61 (Massachusetts) (above). The ideal destination for this content may be left to the editors working on the affected articles. Edge3 (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Taxation in Massachusetts as per BD2412's excellent suggestion and rationale. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Swiss Quality Hotels International

Swiss Quality Hotels International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional. Sources fail to demonstrate notability Sam at Megaputer (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - promotional piece, which barely goes beyond being a simple directory. As a large chain, was pretty shocked not to find enough in-depth coverage to pass either WP:SIGCOV or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and keep. There is consensus that the Gugark massacre/pogrom meets the general notability guideline. Discussion as to what its proper name is, and whether or not specific redirects should exist, is beyond the scope of this deletion discussion. There is consensus that the other topics lack independent notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Ballıqaya massacre

Ballıqaya massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Bashlibel massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gugark massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shamakhi massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of these articles were created recently, most during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (Ballıqaya was created slightly earlier). All of them use exclusively unreliable Azeri or Turkic "sources", there are no third-party sources at all. They all contain graphic claims:

• A man named Garib, a member of the county council who lost a foot in the Second World War, was evacuated from his home, tied to an apple tree in his garden, and then set on fire after gasoline was poured on him. 13 more people, including one foreigner, were tied to a tree and set on fire.
• The crimes were committed with special cruelty. The victims' arms, legs, noses, ears were cut off, their eyes were gouged out, their bellies were torn, burned and tortured to death.
• One of the victims was a 6 months old infant. Armenian troops burned all bodies after committing the massacre.

Yet despite that, practically nothing about them seems to have been written by third-parties. These article subjects have not gotten nearly as much coverage as the Shusha massacre, Sumgait pogrom, Kirovabad pogrom, Baku pogrom, Operation Ring, Khojaly tragedy, or Maraga massacre. A Google Books search brings up nothing. Thomas de Waal, who is usually pro-Azeri, doesn't mention them at all in his Black Garden book. Steverci (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NP, WP:RS, All aforementioned articles are classical azerbaijani propaganda, written by same editors. Not a single verifiable third-party source. Simple google search brings up azeri sources. Articles mostly promote ethnic hatred against armenians, a political agenda promoted by azerbaijani government. Addictedtohistory (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom and per addictedtohistory. - Kevo327 (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Against tagging the information you deem biased isn't hard thing to do. This application is simply WP:JDLI. All Armenian users want to delete this for a undoubtful reason, and such way of using the Wikipedia is worrying. Third-party users can do some digging to find extremely reliable sources on these issues, but it seems like the nominator preffered to delete articles on Armenian war crimes once for all. This isn't first time Streverci is doing it. His disruptive behavior has started after his unblock like a month ago. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the text of the articles, yes, I share the same feeling of them being worryingly POV. But even stubbing an article would do the trick rather than straight up deleting it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Creating articles in mass promoting same agenda with similar content without credibility, mildly put, stubbing is not a solution but a promotion. You say ...users can do some digging to find extremely reliable sources.... If there where any extremly reliable sources the article wouldn't be up for AfD. Addictedtohistory (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

We'll see. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment The Gugark massacre article seems like it has non-Azeri Russian sources in its Bibliography section. -Śαǿturα^💬 15:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The Russian source [[76]] is about Armenian pogroms in Sumgayit and Baku. Addictedtohistory (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• DeleteThe articles include large sections of unsourced content, one even with witness testimonies. To portray the Armenians massacring Azerbajiani with Azerbaijani sources but no RS is not Wikipedia. In the current state of the articles, delete.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Addictedtohistory, Paradise Chronicle, and Steverci, I've made a massive overhaul to the Gugark massacre. You can check it and comment on it. I don't think its current state is a basis for deletion. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, it should be titled the Gugark pogrom, not massacre. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the article name to Gugark pogrom per requests here. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Gugark Massacre; Delete rest. Gugark Massacre page has been overhauled with WP:RS sources and WP:NPOV sentences, so it's not in a position to be nominated for deletion anymore, but rest of the articles are either unsourced or badly sourced, so I'd say remove them and if someone ever finds better, WP:RS sources in the future about those topics, they can recreate the articles. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Gugark Massacre, delete others. i agree with CuriousGolden's points. Thanks to Solavirum, Gugark massacre article seems pretty fine now. However, it might need a move to Gugark pogrom or maybe Gugark pogroms.-Śαǿturα^💬 20:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the article name to Gugark pogrom per requests here. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Gugark massacre has been moved to Gugark pogrom.

Gugark pogrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Addictedtohistory, Paradise Chronicle, and Steverci, waiting for your response here. 12:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The article still uses Gugark massacre as alternative name and redirects from Gugark massacre. When it comes to war crimes category, it's still not justified how inter ethnic hostilities between civilians in no war zone, where no millitary is involved constitutes war crime. Addictedtohistory (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

So what? Sumgait pogrom's another redirect is Sumgait Massacre. Redirects are there to make the article easier to find. And if you have problem with the war crime category, then reply to comments in Talk:Gugark pogrom#War crimes? and try to reach a WP:CONSENSUS, because without that, your comment seems like WP:JDLI. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You use Sumgait Pogrom as reference, yet don't notice that it's not categorised as war crime. Addictedtohistory (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

And how's that a basis for deletion? These stuff can be solved in the talk page, and are not reasons for deletion. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Solavirum is right, please argue about that in Talk:Gugark pogrom#War crimes?, this isn't the place.-Śαǿturα^💬 14:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gugark pogrom included. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  Nominator's original nomination included the old version of Gugark pogrom article and there haven't been any proper argument for its deletion following the article's remake. So, do you have any argument for its deletion? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. The pogrom in Gugark is not a controversial issue; it is an event confirmed at the time by local Armenian authorities, which also released the number of the killed, and there are enough third-party sources cited in the article.
  • Note to administator How is it possible that a user indefinitely banned from editing Armenia-Azerbaijan articles is launching such a nomination? Parishan (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The article Gugark massacre is sufficiently sourced, with the use of third-party sources. Grandmaster 10:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Gugark massacre per above. The Shamakhi massacre was probably a spillover of the March Days. Brandmeister^talk 10:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Gugark Thanks for the improvements Solavirum. About the others which my vote is still delete. Quoted witness section at Bashlibel massacre still unsourced and unattributed.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Keep all for now. From what I can see sources indicate WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Farshad Valaei

Farshad Valaei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Not sure how the article meets GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• KeepFarshad Valaei is a well-known person in Iran and has done great work in the field of his profession, he is a visual effects designer and has worked in well-known series and films, showcasing his artistic creativity, various magazines and websites have been written about him, list of his notable works are mentioned in his imdb page.DarkBook6789 (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)— DarkBook6789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - sources completely fail to establish notability; if anyone can provide evidence of coverage in independent, published, reliable sources (i.e. not IMDb and not Instagram) please ping me Spiderone 00:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Widnes Laboratory

Widnes Laboratory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

First, if it remains, it should probably be renamed ICI Widness Laboratory, as the few mentions of the place refer to it as that. Second, there are very few mentions of it. It's main and only claim to fame is the development of Halothane there in the early-mid 50s. A thought would be to add a sentence or to the Halothane article in the history section about the ICI lab, but other than that, appears to be a run of the mill lab/factory. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Deprodded without explanation or improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The claim to fame seems quite ample. I find that Mike Peel took a picture of its corresponding blue plaque. (right). It is featured by Historic England in A History of England in 100 Places, having been selected especially for its place in the UK's chemistry heritage.

Note also that the use as a lab followed the site's previous use as a site of the United Alkali Company – one of the components of ICI. There's an extensive paper on that company's Widnes Lab during the First World War and I'm still digesting the details.

As for the PROD, this was disruptive as the page had been newly created in good faith just two days before. The PROD process is only for "uncontroversial" and "uncomplicated deletion proposals" but a landmark in science is obviously not in this category. The nomination complains that no improvement was made but it doesn't appear that the nominator has made any attempt at improvement either. Our policy WP:ATD explains that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." And deletion is not improvement; quite the contrary.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per Andrew. Blue plaque notable. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep also as per Andrew's comments. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - per above, notability seems to have been established. Dunarc (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - just so we're clear, having a blue plaque is grounds for notability? So the John Dalton Cottage would meet those notability requirements? Or the place where a water pump once stood where John Snow conducted research on deaths from cholera? I don't believe that this lab is on the list of National Heritage List for England (NHLE), or is a Listed building. In addition to say it is "featured" in a book by Historic England might be a bit of a stretch. Online searching is unavailable in that edition. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 05:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thomas F. Collura

Thomas F. Collura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable psychologist and neuroscientist. It appears to be mainly promotional. All of the sources are written by him, and the company that he's the president of doesn't even have an article. Poydoo can talk and edit 00:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 00:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 00:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, it seems that he is a well-published scholar, the claims in the article need to be verified, but I'd hold on deleting it. Kolma8 (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - there are zero independent reliable sources in the article about this person, in direct violation of WP:BLP. Many hits on Google are not to this person, but to Tom Collura, a marginally notable lawyer from Albany, New York, and Mary Collura, who has run for office and might be a relative. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a resume, not an article. FalconK (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete articles need to reference secondary sources, not just list the works of the subject to show that they have published. We need material about the subject of an article, not just a list of the articles they have written.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Kathi Karthika

Kathi Karthika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Sources lack WP:SIGCOV. Not involved in any notable productions either apart from being a Bigg Boss contestant. Ab207 (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Discuss Wondering what the MicTV channel is? I suspect a youtube channel. If so, likely not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Oaktree b: Indeed, MicTV is a youtube channel. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Nominator's Comment The article has 5 references, the first two (Indian Express and Firstpost) are updates about the show in which the subject participated. In the two references of Telangana Today, one makes only passing mention and the other makes no mention at all. The final TOI reference (press release?) is about the talk show they attended. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree with the nominator; sources fail to establish notability and no indication of anything better in a quick search Spiderone 13:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and per the above. BD2412 T 05:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as does not pass WP:SIGCOV, but a redirect to Bigg Boss (Telugu season 1)#Housemates status would also work as ATD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

St. Simon's Episcopal Church

St. Simon's Episcopal Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Run of the mill congregation. Many churches are notable because they're listed on the NRHP. This one is not and, apart from a single entry in a book detailing every church in Buffalo, there is no other WP:SIGCOV. schetm (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a parish that dates to the 19th century. A quick search of Newspapers.com turned up some SIGCOV, e.g., this and this. The Buffalo Architectural History site also has a history of the buiding. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak delete Most but not all of the article is promotional and it's sourced only to the church website. The history section is potentially salvageable into a stub article and I think the sources Cbl62 found can be helpful in saving this thing. If we have a list of churches in Buffalo the history section could be sourced and then moved there, but I haven't checked. SportingFlyer T·C 23:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge with South Buffalo, Buffalo, New York. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge with South Buffalo, Buffalo, New York as it would fit there but not enough coverage for a stand-alone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep >> I just added an NPR article on the church's soup kitchen. It seems like there are plenty of good sources available to add to this page. Just needs a little help. --Nerdtimer (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That's not NPR. It's a story from a WP:LOCAL NPR affiliate. schetm (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe that WP:AUD applies to churches and other such historic buildings. Cbl62 (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• delete I see no sign of the kind of coverage a parish would need to be notable. It's a handsome enough building, but it doesn't enjoy NRHP notice or anything similar, and the rest is just what any halfway prosperous Episcopal parish is doing. Mangoe (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. First off, this is so poorly written that it would need a major re-write to become an article rather than a soap-box for a church. Secondly, the parish is not notable as a historic church; it's only 95 years old, is not unusually large, and has never been a site for a pilgrimage nor a synod. FWIW, I am an Episcopalian. I would not oppose a redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - the article provided is good enough; the AUD requirement here does not clearly delineate the difference between regional and local.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete — Per rationale provided by both Bearian & Mangoe. Furthermore, following a google and google book search I couldn’t locate sources with significant coverage for article to be retained at this time.Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per the nom and @Bearian. Fails WP:GNG due to only having local WP:runofthemill coverage (primarily their own website), not independent sustained WP:SIGCOV. Was created by a WP:SPA and clearly serves as free proselytization advertising for this church. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Neya (inhabited locality)

Neya (inhabited locality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Only one place with an article. The other isn't even mentioned in its linked article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep, this is not a dab, this is a set index article. Set index articles can even consist fully of red links.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete The dab Neya which links the town would be allowed to also link the red rural locality. Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No it won't. Red links must satisfy WP:DABRL to be included on disambiguaton pages. For set indices, a reference is sufficient (but including a reference on a disambiguation page is also contrary to disambiguation page formatting guidelines; hence a set index).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 6, 2020; 21:22 (UTC)
• Keep per Yaroslav, and as a page creator.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 6, 2020; 21:22 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No corresponding article/index in Russian. Trivial info. Kolma8 (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, per Ymblanter. Just because there's no Russian article doesn't mean we don't want one. Having the set index is helpful for people working in the area of Russian localities as it helps keep track of what has an article and what doesn't yet. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

How does one patch KDE2 under FreeBSD?

How does one patch KDE2 under FreeBSD? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An article about a Russophone IRC joke. Most definitely does not meet WP:GNG. Seemplez 10:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Seemplez 10:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep, the articles has sources of sorts. I'm not convinced that it's not notable within certain circles in one of the largest countries; Russia alone has 140 million inhabitants and the Russophony is larger than that. Geschichte (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Geschichte: Just because a country has 140 million people in it does not mean 140 million people use the #anime channel on RusNet or are aware of the joke through other means. One of the cited sources is the channel transcript and another is from the FreeBSD mailing list, hardly reliable news sources. Two sources are not in English (instead Kazakh and Ukranian) and another is the FreeBSD ports package listing for KDE4 and a slideshow on how to patch it in (I assume) Russian. Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 14:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to FreeBSD. TolWol56 (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. One of a zillion WP:MILL internet memes, does not warrant a mention at FreeBSD. Sandstein 08:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Austin K. Russell

Austin K. Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No effective references. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete- His company might be notable, but it is not established for the person. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep His company is definitely notable. Austin K. Russell is obviously notable: he is one of the youngest billionaires, a prodigy engineer, Stanford dropout and Thiel fellow. I find it ridiculous that we are discussing deletion of this page, and at the same time keep pages for, say, the Kardashian family. Magicheader (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • None of Stanford, Peter Thiel, nor a billion dollars automatically confer notability, and articles aren't awarded for success in life. FalconK (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep If anything the article should be expanded. Currently world's youngest self-made billionaire. Founder of a NASDAQ listed company. MIT 35 under 35. Forbes 30 under 30. Thiel Fellow. Absolutely meets the WP:BIO test of being "worthy of notice", as evidenced by all the WP:SIGCOV in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, FastCompany, Wired, CNBC, ArsTechnica, Sky, The Independent, MSN, and more. These predate the IPO and can be found going back to 2017. The subject himself, and not just the company he founded, is the main topic of many of the references. I have added more of these to the article. ―StvnW ^talk 17:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The above two editors are WP:SPAs. scope_creep^Talk 18:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not an SPA. ―StvnW ^talk 15:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Magicheader doesn't look like an SPA either to me. Jmill1806 (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Lets examine the references. I have removed extensive additions of Forbes which are deprecated. They are very low-quality and have no place on Wikipedia.

* [77] Luminar founder and CEO Austin Russell told Spectrum earlier this year that for autonomous cars, “Cost is not the most important issue; performance is.” Reliable, independent but is dependent, primary source.

* [78] This is reliable, independent, but is essentially a company reference. It is not significant. This is BLP.

* [79] Patents. Non-RS.

* [80] “No other company has released actual raw data from their sensor,” he says. “Frankly there are a lot of slideshows in this space, not actual hardware.” Reliable but dependent.

* [81] Reliable and independent but not significant. Essentially a name drop.

* [82] Press-release.

* [83] “Autonomous cars can’t reliably see today,” Russell says. “We need fundamentally better hardware, fundamentally better data.” Reliable but dependent, and not significant. Passing mention.

* [84] “AID is an ideal partner for Luminar, with the backing and resources of the world’s largest OEM while maintaining a fresh software-minded spirit of a high-growth startup,” he said Reliable but dependent sources and not significant. Passing mention.

* [85] Not reliable, nor significant. Press-release.

The rest of the references are routine announcements, passing mentions and non-notable puffy award page. These references are poor. Essentially they are all passing mentions, routine announcements, or press releases. There is not significant in-depth coverage, suitable for a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 18:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

* The first and second Forbes references are written by Forbes staff. The third is for the 30 Under 30 list. All three are RS according to WP:RSP, with WP:FORBES addressing these specifically. There is a distinction made between articles authored by staff which have editorial oversight, and the lesser-quality WP:FORBESCON posts which do not. The former are not deprecated and I have therefore undone their removal.

* Similarly, the Fox Business reference is also RS per WP:FOXNEWS.

* The FastCompany article is included to substantiate the subject's birthday.

* Issued patents are RS for the existence of patents. One is free to argue that their mention does not belong in the article in the first place, but if included then the citation is both needed and appropriate.

* The TechCrunch article is written by a senior staff member and appears credible enough to ascertain the existence of a deal between Luminar and Volvo. Again, whether that relationship should be included here is a separate matter, but if so then the citation is appropriate.

* The Daimler reference can be replaced with one from Bloomberg, same qualification. ―StvnW ^talk 18:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the references above:

• [86] Russell told FOX Business Network's “The Claman Countdown” on Thursday that he took up entrepreneur Peter Thiel’s challenge to quit college in exchange for a $100,000 investment. Newly-minted by Forbes magazine as the youngest self-made billionaire, Russell explained that the risk was clearly worth the reward. “I always knew academia wasn’t going to be the right route for this,” he said. “Because if you really want to make a huge impact into the world, being stuck in a given lab is not the right way to do it. You have to be able to commercialize it ... You have to make it economically viable.” This is an interview. It is a reliable but it is dependent source.
• [87] “It’s been insanely intense, grueling . . . everything through every day that we’ve had to go through, scaling this up. And of course it’s incredibly rewarding to have an opportunity to be able to get out there now and get into the public markets and scale through this IPO SPAC,” 25-year-old Russell tells Forb It is an interview and a dependent source also.
• [88]. This a profile page. It is non-rs. Nobody writes these types of profile It is machine-generated, from Bloomberg data and it is entirely non-rs.
• This a duplicate:
• [89] Within a few seconds of talking to Russell, I begin to forget about his age. This is also a dependent source.
• [90] This is a passing mention. It is a corporate article of a merger. startup has continued to improve its lidar as well as attract investors. Luminar announced last year it had raised $100 million It fails WP:CORPDEPTH. standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance, of a capital transaction, such as raised capital.

* [91] Notice of a partnership. Routine coverage. Press-release.

* [] Bloomberg, 404, but likely a paid promotion. Everything that is on Bloomberg is paid for.

These references are very poor. They are all dependent sources, where the interviewee can say pretty much anything he wants and it will be reported, but that doesn't make a good quality source. When people list these types of references, its almost like when they see a page in a reliable site, then as long page is from site, they assume valid. That is the wrong approach. It is the quality of the content in the page that matters now. Only the quality of content that matters now, NOT the location. This isn't 2010, when any kind of reference could be used, where is was assumed if came from a good site, it was valid. Things have changed in the last decade and the notability standards have been tightened up to reflect that. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• KEEP: meets BASIC and CREATIVE The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

This person above is another WP:SPA editor specifically sent in to fudge the Afd. scope_creep^Talk 13:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing in here indicates the subject of the article is notable; notability isn't inherited from the company and there's nothing to say about this person otherwise. FalconK (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. As others have said, nothing to indicate notability of Russell, just notability of Luminar Technologies (which I happen to think is sufficiently notable for a page, but that's not the topic of this discussion). Jmill1806 (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - the company is notable, he doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Anna Jewsbury

Anna Jewsbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No real sourcing. A couple of interviews, the rest is company product listings. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep a lot of the sourcingis mentions in passing but in aggregate seems like enough to scrape WP:GNG. Artw (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Added some refs, upgrading to keep. Artw (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep there is significant coverage. Passes notability and Wp:GNG. Coverage is from credible publications. Did a google search and found this WSJ mention, which I will add.Peter303x (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This user is a WP:SPA and that is a very poor reference. scope_creep^Talk 08:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

SPA??? in what way? I have been doing editing since 2013 and have hundreds of edits. I have done edits to musicians, musical instruments, entertainers, entrepreneurs, companies, general stuff, AFDs, etc. Explain what is my single purpose??? Either you are trying to discreet me with personal attacks or this was a mistake, in which case you should apologize. And I beg to differ with WSJ being a poor source. WSJ is Top 10 publication. Getting coverage, even a mention from WSJ, is great for notability. It's like you get a Top 10 Billboard song. I also seen you post SPA messages before and you were right on point with what I have seen, so I am assuming this was a mistake.Peter303x (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

You are a SPA. You show up when there is certain Afd's appear, which means your probably paid. scope_creep^Talk 23:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said I am editor since 2013 and have done hundreds of edits. I didnt even do any AFD until 2018! Please stop accusing me. This is now WP:HAR. Instead lets get back on subject on why you think a WSJ is not a good source.Peter303x (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Kolma8 (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment, some editors above talk of mentions adding up to meeting WP:GNG, but it is specific about significant coverage, not trivial ie. mentions, these mentions are just bread and butter to designers, they are not the sort of things that make someone wikinotable, the same if we apply WP:CREATIVE here, so am leaning towards delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I don't find the keep arguments persuasive in the face of the replies to them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Clint Stinchcomb

Clint Stinchcomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Potentially notable but references are routine announcements. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 13:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Logs: 2020-11 ✍️ create, 2020-11 ✗ G5

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. GNG fail. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep There's coverage in context of two publicly traded companies on top of another that is notable enough for Wiki inclusion. Between the 15 sources included, meets WP:BASIC which states if depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Per WP:BASIC, does not need to meet all criteria at WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG since this is an article about a person. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not agree. The total number of sources in the article does not matter; 'none' of them represent personal significant independent coverage of Clint in reliable sources. This is a high bar to meet. Citation 1 is a routine business announcement and only mentions Clint in passing. Citation 2, the same. 3 is about the company, not Clint. 4 is a routine announcement about the company, and does not substantially consider Clint. 5 is an insubstantial piece and an alumni magazine is not an independent WP:RS. 6 is a routine business announcement. 7 is an interview with him, so not independent. 8 is an article about his industry, and he was interviewed about it; it's not coverage of him, and it's not clear that this is an independent reliable source (Cigar Aficionado). 9 is an article that uses him as a source but is not independent coverage of him. 10 is as routine business announcement and does not cover Clint personally. 11 mentions him in passing only to quote him. 12 is nearly identical to #4 (same quotes, likely from the same press release or interview) and is a routine business announcement. 13 is a routine business announcement and mentions Clint only in passing. 14 is actually a redirect to #13. 15 mentions Clint only in passing in reference to his job, and is a routine business announcement. 16 is not about him at all and mentions him in a list of producers at the bottom. 17 is an insubstantial profile in something that is not likely a WP:RS, and in any case appears dependent because it primarily publishes information he clearly wrote about himself. There's nothing left of the 17 sources in the article when it comes to making a case for WP:BASIC. FalconK (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• keep per reasoning stated above. meets wp:basic; i dont see sigcov or gng as a requirment as others mentioned. at wp:sigcov it says that a topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guidline to qualify for a standalone article.73.119.117.165 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

editor is a WP:SPA who doesn't understand notability. Has made 1 edit. scope_creep^Talk 22:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no coverage about him specifically. His name is just mentioned a bunch in connection with companies. The article is void of both useful information and WP:RS, mostly WP:MILL coverage of normal business changes. The coverage is not personal and does not meet the notability criteria required of a bio. FalconK (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Coverage does seem to be personal. As mentioned above there's coverage of his involvement in the context of two publicly traded and there are several profiles on him. Thought the above point by @sneakerheadguy re: "Between the 15 sources included, meets WP:BASIC which states if depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Per WP:BASIC, does not need to meet all criteria at WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG since this is an article about a person."

Alternatively, it might be interesting to explore the possibility of a MERGE with the current company CuriosityStream, as the CEOs of the major streaming services, of which this seems to be one, have received and will receive substantial coverage, and it seems a shame to be having this same discussion in six months, as it's pretty evident that the coverage will do nothing but increase fairly quickly. 69.203.17.42 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

User is a WP:SPA, who has made no other edits to wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 21:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of clarifying the outcome of this discussion, I rebutted Sneakerheadguy's comments above in detail. The volume of sources is not meaningful; not one of them is significant personal coverage, and there's absolutely no reason to believe the coverage will increase (but even if it did, WP:TOOSOON for the moment). The multiple independent sources combined to demonstrate notability would need to, you know, add up to significant personal coverage in the aggregate. They do not. FalconK (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Rudolph Foods. Nothing significant to merge so closing as redirect w/o applying merge tag. Content remains in the history for merge if anyone disagrees though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Southern Recipe

Southern Recipe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NORG. The Rudolph Foods article contains much of the same content as in this article. Rogermx (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Don't see a reason to have separate wiki article. Kolma8 (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Rudolph Foods, the parent company of Southern Recipe, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability. Three of the sources given are deadlinks and the 4th one is a blog.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• DELETE: fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).
• Merge/Redirect to the parent company Rudolph Foods HighKing⁺⁺ 20:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Twed Towers

Twed Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Notability is not inherited from tenants. There is advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. This is a nice, normal, building, not an encyclopedic topic.   // Timothy :: talk  21:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  21:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  21:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral There's a lot of hits because the building houses Uganda's main commercial courts, was the subject of a bomb threat, and the ground floor ceiling caved in, so its notability isn't zero, but I can't find anything showing that it's 100% notable yet (like an article about its construction.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:SIGCOV, WP:MILL, and my standards for tall buildings. It sounds like a very ordinary building, only nine stories high.. and the tenants are not world-famous. The coverage seems local and ordinary. It fails the standards at NBUILD including my own. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to American Experience (season 28). I don't see anything worth merging, but the content is still in the history for merging in case anyone disagrees ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The Battle of Chosin

The Battle of Chosin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable television film, no independent coverage, all sources come from PBS and it seems other distributors (local stations, Apple TV, etc), does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• Soft Delete - If this were a draft at AFC, I would decline it as not satisfying film notability without a Reception section. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Merge into American Experience (season 28) where it is already listed. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

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