Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 25	December 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Chompy Ace 12:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Bornea

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

Deleted once per WP:PROD, again fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Chompy Ace 23:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 23:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 23:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's only a single source throughout the entire article.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bettydaisies: I think the number of sources has changed since then?OfficerCow (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: User:Superastig seems to have added multiple reliable secondary sources. More seem to be available on the internet, this passes WP:GNG but just barely.OfficerCow (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking Kumares

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

Not notable article fails WP:GNG, the only source in this page is the blog per WP:UGC and WP:SPS. Chompy Ace 23:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 23:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 23:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:NTV. – DarkGlow (✉) 18:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sources found. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NTV. OfficerCow (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the show except for a spot.ph article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friday's Child (band)

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

Nothing to suggest notability. Could not find independent reliable sources to meet WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article was deleted in 2006, which, to be honest, surprised me, as every article was kept back then. Like at every AfD from the time, there were keep voters who wanted to keep the article based on the band's official site and a blank Allmusic page, but thankfully, there were sensible people who said they are not notable. And as a user said at that Afd (very wisely, might I add): "An Allmusic page without a biography means nothing." Truer words never spoken. So it was deleted. One year later it was recreated by a user whose activity mainly revolved around this article (and had a minor edit in the Tufts University article), and it has managed to stay here since then. 13 years have passed, and they still haven't reached notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's preponderance of red links is telling, as nothing this band released or anyone associated with them is notable. The above voter is correct about the empty and useless AllMusic page (not to be confused with a bunch of others on songs called "Friday's Child"), and despite a lengthy career the band generated no media coverage except for occasional gig announcements in their local area. Today they are only present in minor database and retail entries, and a few YouTube videos probably uploaded by themselves. A local band with a few local fans but not eligible for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. JSFarman (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this band falls well below the standards required for notability. There's no debate here Spiderone 18:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and salt. Sandstein 12:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Stickmin

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Henry Stickmin Collection. Surprise, it's still non-notable and fails WP:GNG. Sourcing is lackluster and does not contain significant mentions. It seems this page gets recreated every 2 minutes. WP:SALT yet? _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom. Nostalgia, unfortunately, does not play towards notability. Seeing how there are zero hits for authored sources in WP:VG/SE and zero reviews on Metacritic, the non-notability is rather apparent. The current state of the article has only two secondary sources, both of which cover the same announcement (á la WP:RUNOFTHEMILL) in which Henry Stickmin occurs only as a WP:PASSING mention. IceWelder [✉] 00:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Henry Stickman Collection is and was very popular, with nearly 20000 reviews on steam, many more than other games with articles. Its relationship with Innersloth and Among Us also give it lots of notability, with Among Us being one of, if not the most popular game currently. It has also been played by popular online creators, such as Markiplier, Jackepticeye and DanTDM, giving it even more attention. It has a metacritic rating too, albiet unreferenced in the article. https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-henry-stickmin-collection I see little reason to delete the article other than it being poorly written. Pladica (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Henry Stickman Collection is and was very popular, with nearly 20000 reviews on steam, many more than other games with articles.

Player engagement does not create notability; WP:USERG et al. WP:NVG and WP:GNG have to be met instead; the Steam review count (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.

Its relationship with Innersloth and Among Us also give it lots of notability, with Among Us being one of, if not the most popular game currently.

Henry Stickmin needs to be notable on its own; it does *not* inherit its notability from Among Us or Innersloth (see also WP:INHERIT).

It has also been played by popular online creators, such as Markiplier, Jackepticeye and DanTDM, giving it even more attention.

Fails WP:RS, possibly USERG. Imagine the mess we would have if we created an article for every obscure game any random YouTube channel showcased, especially when we can only rely on these YouTubers as sources.

It has a metacritic rating too, albiet unreferenced in the article.

This is simply untrue. The site says, quite clearly, "Metascore: No score yet based on 0 Critic Reviews". IceWelder [✉] 12:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't think it's an "obscure game" in the slightest, with all the attention it's got. And yes I'm more than aware that YouTube channels don't count as reliable sources, but I think this is an exception when multiple of the largest creators on the platform play it, garnering tens of millions of views. Media sources rarely cover these types of games, even when they receive tons of attention like Henry Stickmin, so I think it's silly that it's expected for one to get such coverage in order for it to be counted as "notable". As for the Metascore, that is my mistake, I thought user scores counted. Pladica (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, we should not make an exception for games that received increased attention from entertainers. Since we cannot use said entertainers as reliable sources, articles with this precedent would either lack any kind of content or be mostly unverifiable. The latter holds true for this article, which is 90% unsourced. Notability is the bare minimum for a topic; enough information available in reliable secondary sources to ensure that all core points of that topic can be covered *and cited*. Why the media hasn't covered Henry Stickmin (or The Henry Stickmin Collection in particular) is honestly beyond me, especially when compared to the likes of Deeeer Simulator, another popular streamer game that has received at least some coverage. In the unlikely event that Henry Stickmin becomes notable by Wikipedia's terms, it can easily be recreated. Until then, the Henry Stickmin Wiki will likely have to do. IceWelder [✉] 13:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough, hopefully it gets more coverage in the future. Pladica (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per the actions on The Henry Stickmin Collection. Pahunkat (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per IceWelder and Pahunkat. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I love Henry Stickmin, but it's already peaked in August 2020. The fandom is going to shrink and pop in a couple of months tops. At this point we should wait until Puffballs or Innersloth becomes notable enough to get their own articles and mention it in those pages. In the meantime redirect Henry Stickmin to Among Us. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:8D80:8C1:2267:6D8D (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I love Henry Stickmin (sound familiar), but this just wont work. People who create this article should focus their attention to Among Us, I guess. Le Panini ^[🥪] 03:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhittin Böcek

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

BLP of the mayor of Antalya. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a lot of coverage about him by pro-CHP/anti-AKP sources, mainly by Sözcü: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. 1 is about him standing up for a citizen who got a fine for a weird reason. 2 is about him announcing the minimum wage at the municipality. 3 is about him saying he is not going to resign (because he got COVID). 4, 5, 6 and 7 are mainly about him getting COVID and recovering from it. 8 is about him “getting in action” after warnings for upcoming heavy rain. I would consider these sources having a bit more neutral POV: [9] and [10], about him getting COVID. Most of the sources are heavily biased and can be seen as "propaganda" and are therefore not considered reliable. The 2 remaining sources are because he got COVID. WP:POLOUTCOMES says "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD", which is quite confusing, hence I’m not recording a vote. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how mayors are elected in Turkey, but it is obvious that he's not just merely a politician. He holds a public office, and like many other mayors influences the livelihood of the citizens. With that regard, he could actually be notable. Keivan.f^Talk 23:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: There are local elections every 5 years. Böcek got elected in 2019 Turkish local elections. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 10:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It definitely passes NPOL. First, he is the mayor of one of the biggest cities in Turkey, and it's a province-wide office because of the establishment of metropolitan municipalities, which comprise the whole province. Second, he has a great coverage (at least in general media or local news) in addition to the sources that supplied by Styyx, due to the projects that implemented or planned in his mayoralty. ([11], [12], [13])Ahmetlii (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He definitely passes NPOL on the basis of coverage in the Turkish national papers. See the Hurriyet articles e.g. [14]; and Cumhuriyet similarly - [15]; Sozcu has multiple articles e.g. [16]. Granted, a lot of them are about Böcek's bout with the Coronavirus but he is clearly notable enough to generate many articles directly about him in the major national newspapers. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 05:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B.Y. Vijayendra

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

Non notable politician who fails to satisfy any of the criterion listed at WP:NPOL. Being a vice president of a political party doesn’t confer automatic notability. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NPOL. No remarkable work done by the subject, no major public office held, no election won. Lacks coverage. Agree with the nominator. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobility has not been established. Possible WP:UPE violation. I don't see any disclosures. RationalPuff (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- RationalPuff, agree on the suspicions. The same author has also created Draft:B.Y Vijayendra Walrus Ji (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RationalPuff & @Walrus Ji thank you both for pointing out the UPE aspect I didn’t catch that. Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Holding party offices doesn't make him a notable politician. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected party functionaries at this level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 05:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neurelis Inc

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

Non notable organization that falls short of WP:ORGCRIT & have no WP:CORPDEPTH as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search shows non notable sources such as this & this & other unreliable sources which read like sponsored posts. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Weak delete. It looks like there are at least 2 sources that would meet the reliability criteria. That being said, I think there are some WP:CORPDEPTH issues. ~RAM (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: As per the RAM's reasoning SacredSunflower (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Chaffee (politician)

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

BLP of a member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @Mccapra: Orange County, California has a population of 3 million, making it the 6th most populous county in the US. The Orange County Board of Supervisors has 5 members, meaning that each member represents roughly 600,000 people. It is reasonable to presume that such politicians would have a significant level of coverage that meets the requirements of WP:NPOL. Is there something about this specific article that doesn't meet the notability guidelines, or would you apply the same reasoning to the other members of the Board of Supervisors? Edge3 (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well for elected positions below state level I think mayors (but not Council/Assembly members) of major cities such as Chicago, SF or Atlanta are notable. Below that it’s not so clear. Some may be notable, but as far as I know the consensus is that generally they’re not. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly do have several Wikipedia articles about council / board members of large metropolitan areas. For example, see Chicago City Council, as every alderman appears to have an article. On the other hand, you're correct that there's a lot of grey area. (Compare Cook County Board of Commissioners, where not every commissioner has an article.) WP:NPOL does not set clear guidelines for county-level politicians. WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that "American county-level legislators are not considered inherently notable", but also counters that "precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas". So to me, this particular article is not a clear case either way. I'll take a closer look at the sources later today, so that I can make a better-informed recommendation. Edge3 (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've reviewed some sources, as I promised I would do in the thread above. It appears that Chaffee is the first Democrat to serve on the Orange County Board of Supervisors in a very long time. [17][18]. Additionally, his district has roughly 600,000 constituents, which is notable itself, due to the size and scope of his legislative influence. State legislators are already presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL, and his district is larger than many state legislative districts throughout the US. Indeed, it is even larger than the smallest US state. Edge3 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I second Edge3's opinion. This article is notable enough that it should be expanded, not deleted. OfficerCow (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject receives SIGCOV in latimes.com and ocregister.com, as well as in the Fullerton Observer. Orange County is larger (population) than 19 states (it is roughly the size of Utah, Nevada, Puerto Rico or Iowa), if Orange County was a city, it would be the third largest in the US (larger than Chicago, Houston or Philadelphia), it is the 8th largest US county by GDP (putting it ahead of nations such as Ukraine, Czech Republic, Peru, Hungary, Kuwait) so this is not your average county. It is also the main suburb of Los Angeles, a relationship which adds to the weight of the position. Being the mayor and long time council member of a city with 150,000 population that is also a significant education hub in Southern California is signficant. // Timothy :: talk 16:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It seems that the copyvio issues have been resolved. A merger can be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 12:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COSCO Shipping Lines

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

it seems a copyvio. The whole body paragraph of COSCO Shipping Lines#China Ocean Shipping Co. followed the flow of the official company history located here http://www.coscoshipping.com/col/col6862/index.html, written in Chinese. Some sentence structure also very very similar.

e.g. 从此，中远开始了国有企业“贷款买船，赢利还贷”的发展模式，自力更生发展远洋船队。 = rapidly grew its fleet using the business philosophy of “Buying Ships with Bank Loans and Returning Loans with Profits
1964年4月1日，中远公司的第二个分公司上海远洋运输分公司（以下简称上海分公司）宣告成立，成立时的旧址在上海市中山东一路5号，= In 1964, China Ocean Shipping Co. established a second subsidiary, Shanghai Ocean Shipping Co. at No. 5 Zhongshan East No.1 Road in Shanghai

And here is the example from the second section of the article

1993年10月5日，中远投资（新加坡）有限公司在新加坡成功上市，吹响了中远全面进军资本市场的号角，同时也成为第一家进入海外资本市场的中国国有企业
In 1993, COSCO Group listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange, becoming the first Chinese SOE to be listed on a foreign capital market

I should not quote too much , otherwise the Afd itself would became a copyvio.

Apart from copyvio. COSCO Shipping Lines is a division and main business of COSCO Shipping, so why fork out as another article? Did it pass WP:NCORP? Matthew hk (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Eng version. http://en.coscoshipping.com/col/col6922/index.html Matthew hk (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there is the wiki tools on copyvio

https://dupdet.toolforge.org/compare.php?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCOSCO_Shipping_Lines&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fen.coscoshipping.com%2Fcol%2Fcol6922%2Findex.html&minwords=3&minchars=13&removequotations=&removenumbers=

https://iw.toolforge.org/copyvios?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=COSCO_Shipping_Lines&url=http://en.coscoshipping.com/col/col6922/index.html Matthew hk (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more point. The article by the company itself somewhat similar to International Directory of Company History 's entry as well. Not sure is it IDCH copy the old version of the company history by COSCO, or vice versa. Matthew hk (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That a small portion is "Similar" does not mean anything. Definitely does not justify deleting an entire perfectly fine article. – CartleR255 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - COSCO Shipping Lines does not meet Wikipedia's deletion policy:
- The article's content is properly verified (WP:V).
- There is no original research (WP:NOR) in the article.
- The article is written from a WP:NPOV and is free of puffery. Numerous third-party sources have been cited. The content does not reflect any marketing of the organization.
- There is no vanity (WP:VANITY) in the article.
- The article does not contain inaccurate claims.
COSCO Shipping Lines is obviously a very well-written article and contains plenty of reliable, secondary sources. The nominator's rationale that it is "copyvio" is not entirely true. There are sentences that convey information from the corporate webpage, but the syntax is not identical. Also, these sentences are only a very small portion of the article. Most of those sentences cannot be excluded or rephrased because they are direct quotations of the company's business ideology. One of the sentences mentioned by the nominator is a location address, so absolutely it will match with the corporate webpage. Most importantly, this article is the flagship subsidiary of COSCO Shipping Group, so it undoubtedly meets WP:CORP. We cannot merge it with any other Wikipedia article as there is next to zero WP:Overlap. Also, we have plenty of articles of other COSCO Shipping subsidiaries: COSCO Shipping Energy, COSCO Shipping Ports, COSCO Shipping Development. Why not also delete those for lack of WP:CORP?? Finally, I would like to note that this editor, @Matthew hk:, has accused me – the creator of the nominated article – of being a paid editor. Thus, I suspect his nomination to delete COSCO Shipping Lines represents a conflict of interest. – CartleR255 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CartleR255, I really don't understand your move or rationale on articles. COSCO Shipping Lines, is a division of COSCO Shipping, which engaged in container liner. COSCO Shipping Lines' predecessor also in that field. COSCO is the predecessor of COSCO Shipping. So, you tried again and again to merge COSCO and China Shipping Group into COSCO Shipping, but at the same time content fork by creating COSCO Shipping Lines?

COSCO Shipping Lines' may merit to have it own article, if it pass WP:NCORP and/or WP:GNG. But since the main business of COSCO Shipping is container liner (the company also has bulk carrier and port operator divisions), so this time it is not WP:overlap? You also agreed may discussion on merging COSCO Shipping Holdings, which is the listed company within COSCO Shipping group as the direct parent company of the liner, into COSCO Shipping Group, so why COSCO Shipping Lines is the exception on overlap instead?

Moreover, your existing content in this article title, COSCO Shipping Lines, most of them are not the content for that business division, but the company history of COSCO itself (such as Singapore IPO has no context to related to the container liner business, Or those non container liner businesses wiki content. Note that the Chinese name of COSCO Shipping Lines 中远海运集装箱运输有限公司, 集装箱 = Container, thus flooding the article with non-liner content is not suitable, the right place may be COSCO Shipping, which also created by you) , and with promotional tone that seem WP:COPYVIO by close paraphrased from the company version. Also, people seldom add "Awards" section in company article with non-notable award, or putting full address of the company into the article (which itself a close paraphrase of company version of the history in their webpage). Thus, chopping all unrelated, or copyvio, or promotional content. The article has not enough content at all and may be all page history need to be hidden due to copyvio cleanup process. Matthew hk (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the flagship subsidiary is COSCO Shipping Holdings, a listed company, not the ocean liner division, which itself is not listed. I don't like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST logic, but it is totally fine to place the content of parent company and subsidiary together if they basically have the same main business (unless you argue parent company is a holding company that have no business). For example, we only has one article for Geely instead of Geely Auto and Geely Holdings. Or Swire and Swire Pacific is not separate article (yet? Swire Properties is a separate article BTW) Also Emperor Group. Matthew hk (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My rationale to keep COSCO Shipping Lines is that it has a substantial business operation with several details and history (thereby passing WP:CORP). You can easily find secondary sources for COSCO Shipping Lines to verify the content. Also, there is all the history of COSCON and CSCL. Whereas COSCO Shipping Holdings (and its predecessors) is just a holding company, so it suffices to mention it in COSCO Shipping parent group. You may argue that my rationale is arbitrary. However, think of this, I cannot find enough noteworthy content to justify keeping COSCO Shipping Holdings as a separate article, which is why I agreed to your proposed merge. Also @Matthew hk: please visit your talk page for more details. Cartle R255 15:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have proposed WP:ATD which can be found on the article talk page (link). Cartle R255 17:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the agreement evidently reached above. I think it's noteworthy but am not sure of the need for a separate article, unless the parent one becomes too unwieldly. I am also not sure of the copyvio issue; while I agree to content does appear similar, in previous forms of the article (e.g. Special:Diff/992196646 it looks like there were citations for the sentences "rapidly grew its fleet..." (third-party sources, to be fair) and "In 1964, China Ocean Shipping Co..." (the company's English about page). Disregarding questions of whether novelly translated material is in itself a copyright violation in the degree that a straight copy/paste would be, the citations seem acceptable, if imperfect. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator hasn't stated a proper rationale for bringing the AFD nomination. One should take suspected copyright violations to WP:COPYPROB and the WP:AFD pages will become even more tangled if we start to conflate the two issues. In any case, COSCO SHIPPING Lines is, as the article says, the world's third largest container shipping company and independently meets WP:GNG. The article needs significant improvement but that's a separate issue. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll just point out that the article has changed radically since it was first nominated. I edited it to see if I could rescue it, eliminating some of the issues the nominator pointed out, and found that the offending passages had been rewritten or removed. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mulshi Pattern

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to help it pass WP:NFILM. Wikipedia is not IMdB. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 15:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as have found five full reviews with at least three in national publications; Times of India here, Zee 5 here, Pune 365 here, Marathi News here, and Marharaash Times here. With this significant coverage in reliable sources WP:GNG and WP:NFILM are passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:NFSOURCES / WP:GNG, in part per the reviews provided above. My WP:BEFORE searches reveal that more usable coverage exists as well, such as [19], [20], [21], etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews listed above. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mentioned article can be relatively notable, and may be better to keep it rather than deleting it, although adding more references can support it more! Ali Ahwazi (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above improvements Donaldd23 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Magician's Elephant (film)

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

No evidence main production has begun, per WP:NFF, should be moved to draft until main production begins BOVINEBOY2008 13:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that the film is in production:

"Lorraine Toussaint (Concrete Cowboy) will voice the movie, which is currently in production."

"Currently in production, the film marks the directorial debut of visual effects vet Wendy Rogers..."

"The film, currently in production, marks the directorial debut of visual effects veteran Wendy Rogers..."

With this in mind, this is clearly a speedy keep. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Some Dude From North Carolina, indeed WP:NFF does not apply; the article states that it is set to be distributed by Netflix. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Snyder (musician)

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

WP:N. Seems to be a vanity article that relies on the subject's own website as a primary source. Subject does not otherwise seem to be particularly notable. Saget53 (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I created the article, I used what I could find. I have access to other sources now and while I don't have time to do anything with this today, I found this already: Kitt Walsh, "Night Scene: Snyder's making music at his Deck restaurant," Naples Daily News, April 11, 2003.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speed Delete per nom . there is nothing relevant to talk about, fail Wikipedia Notability Samat lib (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only one 'vote' Read it again. Just the sources I used and what was included. If that's not enough I can find more.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Sources indicate notability within WP:GNG. I say weak keep for now. BabbaQ (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep has reliable sources coverage such as The Oklahoman and Naples News referenced in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I spent a half hour unsuccessfully trying to find coverage of him. He apparently died last year, and I updated the article accordingly, but I could only find a funeral home announcement. The sourcing is just announcements about him playing at clubs or various benefits, and in at least one case that I could find, it looks like the local paper cut and pasted a bio he provided. There's also a community newsletter used as a source. He has two CDs for sale on Amazon, but they don't seem to have any reviews or other sourcing to suggest notability. There's nowhere near enough reliable sourcing to substantiate the bio and the claims it makes, and certainly nothing that independently validates that he was ever at the top of the clarinet field. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know a lot of the articles look like they are merely announcements that he played, but they are quite detailed if you can find them. I didn't use a source that said, "according to bobsnyder.com" for most of its facts, but no one else did anything like that, and each source had different information. With no evidence suggesting they didn't, I concluded each of these journalists did more than just use what was provided. I will admit there are conflicting reports about which album contains the notable recording. And it is the recording of "Amazing Grace" that makes him notable, if anything. How you source this I don't know, but if DJ Joe Lacina on his nationwide show had "Bob Snyder Time" every Saturday night as he did until shortly before I created this, that has to count for something.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should have done this to begin with. It is quite logical to want to know more about the man who was a featured artist every week on Joe Lacina's national radio show. While I can't provide good sources for this, every Saturday night at 11 the same song on a clarinet was played and Lacina would announce "It's Bob Snyder time." That in itself would prove notability, if I could prove it. At the very least, it provides a logical reason to do the research, and as with so many topics I researched, I allowed Wikipedia to benefit from my efforts. I didn't understand about independent sources or notability back then.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was told to list some sources that seem to demonstrate notability. If you can find these, there is a lot of detail, and while I can't prove the journalists didn't merely get their information from what was provided by Bob Snyder himself, there is nothing like "according to bobsnyder.com" in any of these.

Loomis, Mike (1998-03-18). "Snyder's 'amazing' career continues to blossom". Naples Daily News. p. G26.
Beal Jr., Jim (1999-11-19). "Snyder to perform for benefit brunch". San Antonio Express-News.
Walsh, Kitt (2000-10-20). "Hit The Deck for food, music worthy of royalty". Naples Daily News. p. G.
Walsh, Kitt (2003-04-11). "Night Scene: Snyder's making music at his Deck restaurant". Naples Daily News. p. G15.

And while it's not a great source, this would seem to support my statement that Joe Lacina played Snyder on Saturday nights on a nationwide show.

Stetson, Nancy (2018-04-12). "Life's still a 'Cabaret' for 87-year-old Naples resident". Naples Daily News. p. Arts and Entertainment.

— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are some sources in this article that suggest notability. Even if they are only about a dozen of these sources, they aren't just passing mentions, but articles dedicated to Bob Snyder. More sources could be found, however. Lazman321 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Josepher

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

Non-notable author claiming to be the founder of "faux history". One review in Kirkus for an independently published book is all I could find. [22]. Everything else in the article cites his own works. (Note to closing admin: If this article goes, the redirects Brian josepher and Josepher, Brian might need to be addressed, too.) - Location (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person's work and ideas may at some point reach a level of impact to make him notable, that time is not yet though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly promotional piece to boost the subject, created by a near-SPA. Possibly too soon, but not yet notable. Mccapra (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Springs, California

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

Every source that says anything about this talks about the resort and nothing else, except for place name drops. Not a community, and I don't see that the resort itself is particularly notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly was a resort hotel built upon a hot springs. Should not be considered a community. I don't see anything that indicates notability. Glendoremus (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Election Night (2020 film)

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

Non-notable future film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, production has not been particularly notable, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 19:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, could not find anything to support WP:NFF. Kolma8 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good of All

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

Fails WP:ORG. Per WP:BEFORE I tried to do some research on the org, and I assumed sources might have been easy to miss because of its somewhat generic name after finding nothing of note. After checking the eight sources in the article I am more confident in stating this org is simply non-notable. None qualify as independent, reliable, and significant coverage:

Source 1 is written by the founder.
Sources 2 and 3 are in Korean, but a Google translate look suggests the articles are both brief interviews with the founder, and they do not detail Good of All's work in any meaningful sense.
Source 4 is a release from Good of All by PR Newswire, and thus is WP:SELF and WP:PROMOTION
Source 5 is an op-ed by the founder
Source 6 is an almost identical op-ed, again by the founder
Source 7 is by the founder
Source 8 hints at funding some sort of scholarship, but the link is dead. I found the article here—it's from a Substack, and the total money disbursed was only $16,000.
WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 18:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 18:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The generic name makes a search hard, but I looked in conjunction with the name of the founder and discovered no RIS. Mccapra (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network#Former original programming. Or elsewhere as appropriate. Sandstein 20:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GSN Video Games

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

Micro-stub about a programming block repackaged from Gamer.tv. Fails WP:GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, standard WP:GNG failure. SK2242 (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already mentioned on the main gamer.tv article, seems superfluous to have an individual article on something that's the same content as the main article. TonicBH (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network#Former original programming per WP:CHEAP. Nate • (chatter) 20:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratto Landing, California

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

THere is a certain irony in my inability to find anything out about human activity at this site other than various official records about the outflow of a sewage treatment plant. The name doesn't appear on the topos until that plant gets built, and other than tat I get clickbait, and not much of that. Fails verification, much less notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No post office. Ratto Landing was also known as Ratto's Landing - The Cuttings Wharf 1949 (1956 ed.) topo shows "Rattos Landing". Newspapers.com yields [23], which states that John and Frank Ratto constructed a dock to facilitate the transfer of livestock. Newspapers.com has a few hits about the sewage outfall. GBooks had nothing significant. JSTOR had nothing. Passing reference as a trivial sewage outfall does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. I found no evidence that there was ever a community at this location. The coverage is trivial at best. Thus #2 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. Cxbrx (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cxbrx's excellent reasoning and research Spiderone 18:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doughlings: Invasion

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

Non-notable. WP:VG/SE has just one authored hit (this review). All sources currently used are either primary or unreliable. LordZangar and McRunninFly appear to be COI editors. IceWelder [✉] 17:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 17:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of mentions in unreliable sources but little in the normal gaming press. The Metacritic page seems review bombed as well, making this even more dubious. WP:NOTADVERTISING._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was able to find another review in Nintendojo here, which is listed as a reliable source at WP:VG/RS, but neither of the two linked discussions conclude that it is reliable, so I'm not sure if it is. There is no suitable redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 20:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I’m starting to think Hero Concept should be undeleted. The company has received some media coverage after it got deleted in the AfD: [24], [25]. Then we can merge the games Doughlings: Invasion, Doughlings: Arcade and Mayhem Brawler, which have also received some coverage [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] into that article. I must say that the article(s) contain a lot of unsourced information so the COI-claim might be likely. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 20:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is unlikely, but feel free to draw up a draft. The company's notability shouldn't have an impact on this AfD one way or another. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean its kind of obvious that the games on their own are nowhere near notable, maybe combining them? I don't know to be honest. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 21:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A listicle of unnotable games by an unnotable company would likely run afoul of WP:DIRECTORY. If you believe that the company is notable, based on the new sources, you could create a draft and we might evaluate the notability from there. IceWelder [✉] 13:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Climate change and poverty. Sandstein 20:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate gap

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

Article appears to be a neologism from a small numer of papers by a few academics -- not sure if we should merge this content into other articles (i.e. climate justice or Climate change in the United States) -- but not thinking this is an article in and of itself -- could use some more opinions here. Sadads (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sadads (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Sadads (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: how does the subject of this article differ significantly from Climate change and poverty? I would argue for a possible merge.Praemonitus (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Praemonitus: That might be the right move. Doesn't feel independently notable in and of itself right? Sadads (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sadads: Yes the term itself probably isn't notable; it just sounds like a buzzword. Praemonitus (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Climate change and poverty. I've seen this term used a fair amount, but that's a good catch by Praemonitus. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Korver

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

Non notable Individual. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with sources but a re a mis of primary, quotes from him, pr, about Cinelicious - not him, listings. Did play a blue linked character in As the World Turns but that was as a short term part, 8 episodes of the characters long term run (imdb seperates out Paul Korver, actor [31] and Paul Korver of Cinelicious [32] so was it him that played that character). duffbeerforme (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the above is very unfair and narrow in scope.

There are 32 References on this page that include:

NY Times
LA weekly
Variety
postmagazine.com
and many more Hollywood outlets.

- He is much more than an Actor and the page is very clear about that. So to only evaluate his soap career is very unfair. He was the pioneer of filming big weddings. Paul Korver's Fifty Foot Films has filmed some high-profile marriages like: Christina Aguilera & Jordan Bratman, Mike Piazza & Alicia Rickter, Jessica Capshaw & Christopher Gavigan, Stephanie March & Bobby Flay and Mariska Hargitay & Peter Hermann. This list can be made much longer if this is not enough. The NY Times, Nov. 15, 2006, page is all about him. How many people have a complete NY page about them?
- Paul Korver's Cinelicious was a pioneer film restoration, Korver restored 458 episodes of Death Valley Days. Paul Korver was the SOLE ower of Cinelicious. That is more of a reason to keep the page not less. Cinelicious direct here. Ref LA weekly and digitalproductionbuzz.com
- Korver is the co-founder of Cinelicious Pics a film distribution company.
Page has been here since September 19, 2009‎ and edited by many.
- Please remove the tag put here because someone only looked at his early acting days. Oh, by-the-way acting includes Legally Blonde a 2003 TV Movie, and 4th billing in a Chips movie, so he did more than just soaps.Telecine Guy (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is covered in multiple reputable sources and has much more of a career than his role in As the World Turns. Deltawk (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Lakes, Kern County, California

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

What GMaps shows a vague group of houses which might be called a locale, at best. The topos are quite illuminating, because the oldest one (from the 1940s) show a White Oak Lodge, and take a pair of ponds as Twin Lakes. The label changes to Whiteoak Lodge, and then it goes away and the area itself gets labelled Twin Lakes. A settlement? No. Mangoe (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Searching Newspapers.com and GBooks was difficult because of the many Twin Lakes around, especially near Santa Cruz and Bridgeport. As reported above, there is a GNIS record for White Oak Lodge (Historical) that seems to be quite close to Twin Lakes. Searching for newspapers.com for ' "White Oak Lodge" "Twin Lakes" ' found some real estate articles and one article about earthquake aftershocks. Twin Lakes has no legal recognition, very little coverage, #1 or #2 of WP:GEOLAND are not met. Cxbrx (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Great Mouse Detective. Sandstein 11:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Pollatschek

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

Non notable actress, Cannot find any evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she voiced one role when she was 8, this is not enough for notability. Some of the reasoning behind having a live role making one notable does not pass off in the same ways to a voiced role, so there is nothing here suggesting notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Great Mouse Detective, her only (significant?) role. The haste of people to delete delete delete when there are plausible and reasonable redirect targets is just one of many disturbing things around AfD in this day and age. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with the view above that one voice acting role in a Disney film when a child does not automatically make someone notable. Dunarc (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Great Mouse Detective, she is listed there, no reason not to have a redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G12 by User:Girth Summit (see below). Chompy Ace 15:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Lady K Soul

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

Rather promotional article (but not quite G11 in my view); the article is currently supported by two sources: one is an interview (WP:INTERVIEW), the other is a passing mention in an article about an event. I can't find any sources which are reliable, secondary, independent, and which give the subject significant depth of coverage, so I believe the subject fails WP:GNG, and I can't see any assertions which would approach an WP:NMUSIC pass. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyright violation. See https://www.facebook.com/ReggaeAfrikaSoundsystem/posts/4186409328040720. I've tagged the article. I hadn't even gotten as far as checking sources for notability. Largoplazo (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Largoplazo, good call - I should have checked that myself before nominating here, my bad. I've deleted as a cooyvio, will leave it to someone else to close from a procedural perspective. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nadya A.R.

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

Sources fail to demonstrate notability. Article consists mostly of unsourced promotion. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likely keep with additional research and revision, including citation fixes. Per WP:AUTHOR, there appears to be critical attention, e.g. 1, 2, 3. Beccaynr (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have conducted more research and made revisions to the article, including citation fixes; with the addition of articles and reviews to the article, there now appears to be notability per WP:AUTHOR, because Nadya A.R. "has created ... significant or well-known work," and the work has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Beccaynr (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Beccaynr. Critical attention of her work satisfies WP:AUTHOR. pburka (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The comment by SebastianHelm does not address the deletion rationale and is disregarded because it contains personal attacks. Sandstein 12:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liturgical calendar of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church/Temp

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

Not an article. Orphaned. Created to preserve copyright violations from Liturgical calendar of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, which has since been repaired. Therefore, completely redundant. No attribution provided when this was copied. Elizium23 (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- We certainly should have the permanent article, but the temporary preserved version is in effect an unnecessary fork. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close this AfD, simply ask the creator to blank the page when he or she is done with their work, WP:TROUT the nominator for creating inordinate relentless drama about this for two weeks, and get to work on more important things. ◅ Sebastian 22:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zatikon

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

A seemingly unnotable game that fails WP:GNG/WP:NVG. The article contains some sources, but all of them are either primary or from tertiary and unreliable websites (including the Adrenaline Vault, which is unreliable per WP:VG/RS). A quick google in our reliable sources search engine (WP:VG/SE) shows just one WP:PASSING mention. IceWelder [✉] 11:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 11:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing this now; in the last AfD (2010), the article was also deleted. Pinging past commenters: @Extra999, Teancum, and Cirt. IceWelder [✉] 11:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nicely formatted references mean nothing if they aren't reliable. Unfortunately I stick with deletion --Teancum (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May meet WP:NGAMES, fails WP:GNG and even if this is deleted there will still bean article on the Portuguese Wikipedia. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Hakan Asyalı

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

The person doesn't meet with notability guidelines. I also looked for resources in here, but still I don't think that meets notability. Ahmetlii (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 11:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 11:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 11:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 11:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Was created in July 2010 and was tagged for notability in September that year. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cupper52 Having the notability tag doesn't mean it should be deleted. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 13:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep Four papers cited more than 100 times (325, 163, 161, 153), total citations 1761 [33]. Overall h-index of 21 is low to borderline. Bioinformatics is a high citation field. I found several references to the article subject having served as the first rector of Abdullah Gül University, which appears to be the turkish equivalent of a university president. These were not RS, but they may exist in turkish if someone with the right language background is willing to look. So it is possible this could satisfy criteria #6 of WP:PROF if reliable sources could be found and AGU is considered a major institution. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated from comment to keep based on the additional turkish language sources described in the comment below mine. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some reliable sources talking about his projects [34] [35]. Also has been covered by Hürriyet after he resigned from his position as rector/university president of the Abdullah Gül University and by Sabah after it was found out that he had connections with FETÖ. The rest I found were unreliable sources. As MoneciousTriffid pointed out, the subject meets criteria #6 of WP:PROF, thus should be kept. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 17:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C6 and the weak but positive case for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added the 4 most cited papers. There are 4 papers with over 150 citations. including a comprehensive review and a standard book, all published by major mainstream scientific publishers. This shows him to be an influence in his subject, and meets WP:PROF, This is further shown by his being head of a major university. (Overall h values are meaningless for notability , as here. they do not discriminate between someone with 350, 250, 150, 4 and someone with 8, 5, 4, 4 both individuals would have an h value of 4. One has a notable record, the other is totally unimportant in their subject. That such numbers are given by universities , and cited in WP, shows here shows the misunderstanding of bioinformatics, both in those writing PR and those writing WP. Eugene Garfield , who invented modern citation analysis , warned against this in his work. His warning seems to have had no effect. People who invent valuable tools sometimes see them used for unfortunate purposes. DGG ( talk ) 09:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unify Square

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

not notable and never was. The references are press releases and and notices of funding, and nothing more seems to be available. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No great sources for this company. Coin (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing a company's funding history and positioning of its products/services relative to Lync/Skype/Teams, etc. Aside from the announcement-driven coverage, there is the company's inclusion in a Gartner marketplace vendors list (paywalled), which might merit a mention in an article providing context on that sector, but I am not seeing the level of coverage of the firm itself to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Dixie, California

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

Not entirely sure what this was, but it doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Only sourced to GNIS and Durham. Not in Gudde. Newspapers.com in Kern County bring up results for a stream named Little Dixie Wash, a horse, a dog, and a child. Gbooks brings up stuff about the wash and a Little Dixie Valley. Topos show a single building at the site. Not seeing any evidence that GEOLAND or GNG is met. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability.TH1980 (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence there was anything there. Geschichte (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 15:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it doesn't seem to be notable enough to have an independent article, or at least it needs more sources to prove its notability. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchells Corner, California

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

Appears to be a neighborhood on the outskirts of Arvin. Searching turns up essentially nothing but name drops and clickbait. Doesn't seem notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at Google maps, it's just a crossroads in the desert with one, maybe two, houses. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability.TH1980 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Geschichte (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect all to the respective albums. I am calling on HĐ or other interested editors to create the redirects. Sandstein 13:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hot Kinda Love

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The mentioned articles are about an album's non-single tracks that fail WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. While these songs did chart on the South Korean singles chart, it should be reminded that chart positions may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. A quick search through search engines has resulted in little notable third-party coverage, and most of the articles that cover these topics are mostly fanpages/lyrics websites. The current sources in these articles are mostly reserved to album reviews, and thus it fails notability requirements: Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. My suggestion is to redirect these articles into the songs' parent albums' articles. HĐ (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These have commentary aside from album reviews, also charting. They all have a lot of content. — Calvin999 21:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, chart positions do not warrant notability. I do not currently see any coverage beyond album reviews and discussions; most of the articles have the following structure: Background (album recording/production/release date) → Composition (CFORK from album reviews) → Critical reception (also CFORK from album reviews) → Chart performance (does not equate to notability), HĐ (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Walk Away (Christina Aguilera song) and Lift Me Up (Christina Aguilera song) those are important album tracks and favorite songs of many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RavenPrey (talk • contribs) 14:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RavenPrey: Perhaps you'll find WP:ATA useful. They are not (objectively) "important album tracks", and "favorite songs of many" is a poor reason to keep. HĐ (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: Several other users here have already cited objective reasons, yet they haven't been good enough for some. Walk Away on its own has several live performances and has qualitative value. Keep it.

@RavenPrey: Sorry, but I have responded to their reasons per WP:NSONGS. Just because they have cited reasons does not mean that their reasons are strong enough for a keep consensus. If you can find sources to improve the articles, please do so. Keep in mind however, these sources must comply with notability requirements. HĐ (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lotus, Stripped, and Bionic as the coverage seems to be limited to album reviews. I have done a Google search to see if there is any coverage, and the only thing I can pull up is this Bustle article (here) on "Red Hot Kinda Love", and that is not enough to support significant coverage on its own. When I did the search, I mostly saw people talking about these songs in the context of the album. I'm slightly surprised "Glam" did not get more coverage since it was initially supposed to be the lead single from that album. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Glam" did generate some buzz, but sadly potential sources may have been rotten... HĐ (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The songs nominated for deletion are as notable and worth keeping on Wikipedia as Taylor Swift's songs (and she has a lot of articles on separate songs). They charted on mainstream charts (GAON, OCC, Billboard, among others) without being released as singles. They were performed on television (SNL for "Walk Away") or during widely seen concerts (Hope for Haiti - "Lift Me Up"). They created enough buzz to be kept here, and the sources cited are definitely not only reviews. If for some strange reason those songs are meant to be deleted, I want to know why these were not nominated for deletion: "Passenger", "Whiplash", "Mmm Papi". AngelOfDestiny (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: I hate to say that "other stuff" rationale does not work, but I have some responses to your points:

Chart positions do not warrant notability in its own right (see WP:NSONGS).
Live performances also do not guarantee notability unless the performance is widely covered by the media. Most of these articles have the same structure: background (album production) → composition (album reviews) → critical reception (album reviews) → some lower-tier chart positions
I am pretty sure the "buzz" is limited to a certain audience and certainly not of public interest. If you can prove there are standalone third-party coverage on the songs (i.e. single reviews, analysis on song structure/lyrical content etc.), then feel free to improve the articles. I am not seeing sources that are "not only reviews", besides sources on the conception of the albums and certainly not the songs per-se.
If you find articles that fail notability, you can feel free to proceed to nominate them for deletion yourself. Some of the articles here were nominated by myself for GANs years ago, and now as WP:NSONGS indicate, they shouldn't have existed in the first place. And regarding the songs that you cited, they are not under my watchlist, so thank you for raising my attention. I will sure nominate them for deletion/redirect if I find them unsatisfactory of notability requirements. HĐ (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I don't understand why you brought up the issue with Taylor Swift songs' articles, but from first glance the existing Taylor Swift song articles qualify for notability. There is no series of album tracks from a single album (even "It's Nice to Have a Friend", which received a standalone review by Billboard, or "This Love (Taylor Swift song)", which went platinum in the U.S., do not have respective articles because they do not have significant third-party coverage, which fails notability), and articles on B-sides all make sure that they satisfy notability (i.e. "Innocent (Taylor Swift song)" is about the Kanye West controversy and its performance at the VMAs did generate commentary instead of mere reporting, or "The Last Great American Dynasty" has more than two interpretations regarding its lyrics). So there you go, HĐ (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that some of those articles you mentioned should be deleted/redirected too. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to respective parent albums. Aside from album reviews (which don't count towards notability), I'm only seeing breif mentions for "Red Hot Kinda Love", "Glam", "Lift Me Up", and "Walk Away", and none of these on their own are enough to warrant articles for the tracks. Charts (or lack thereof) are entirely moot in this case. The listed songs simply never qualified for separate pages. I also suspect that at least part of this came from fans wanting to write about music they liked, and while I'm sure they meant well, they would've been better off working on the album prose and such. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all - the "Keep" !votes are kind of missing the point of GNG, ATA and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Arguments such as "Keep because these songs are favorite of many" should not be counted towards the consensus, HĐ (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't keeping stuff based on fan favouritism kinda indicate fancruft? Foxnpichu (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is fancruft. I hope the coordinators don't count these keep votes towards the decision, HĐ (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. Remember that it is the reason behind the !votes, not the numbers. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all of these to their respective parent albums. My reading of the WP:NMUSIC guidelines is that it's somewhat exceptional for a song released on an album to be notable independently of the album or the artist. The song itself would have to be a reasonable subject of research, having its own independent coverage in teritary sources. These articles, on the other hand, are fundamentally WP:ALLPLOT, if I can apply the principles of that here - descriptions of the songs themselves, who created them, detailed and quoted critical reception of each individually, but void entirely of the social and cultural context around the songs. Which is probably because there isn't any, because they are all part of the same artistic project. They are not independently significant. The "background" sections are backgrounds on Aguilera, not the songs - all but Glam and Lift Me Up thread an indentical sequence of facts (Bratman, Burlseque, The Voice, Maroon 5, Jay Leno), reinforcing the lack of individual distinguishing and significant context that might render an individual song notable. The background information would be more appropriately covered in either articles about the albums or about Aguilera herself. But there is little to merge - all these articles collectively have little content specific to their subject. What content there is relies too heavily on verbatim restating quotes of critics. Some of the articles document specific performances of the songs - planned performances, commercially intended, and no more notable than any other curated live event. If such events are notable, the live performance of a particular piece could be included there if important, but we are not building a WP:DIRECTORY for the cross-referencing of songs with each live performance of those songs no matter how notable the artist. In the case of Walk Away, the article relies on the sheet music of the song as a primary source reference for what little song-specific context exists. Nearly every source in Lift Me Up is about Bionic (the album in which it was published), not the song. There's nothing here to write about, and frankly the fractal creation of articles about nearly every song by an artist just to catalogue their respective performances and repeat the words of their critics in detail while recapitulating (in each) the life of the performer mostly in her own words is inappropriate here. With nothing to merge, redirect. FalconK (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your well-constructed argument, Falcon Kirtaran. Your comment is very much appreciated. HĐ (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vojtěch Petr (tennis)

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

Junior player who doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS, nor meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – player doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines as directed by WP:GNG Adamtt9 (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NTENNIS and GNG Spiderone 23:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per User_talk:Onel5969#Tennis. Vojtěch Petr meets WP:GNG (check references). He is also the best Czech tennis player born in 2005 and he is the talent of the year 2019 and 2020. I added more sources, now it meets WP:NTENNIS ("can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG"). Cool Cosma (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, children's sport accomplishments are almost always trivial in nature, and indeed so in this case. Geschichte (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This discussion is a hopeless mess; I'm closing it explicitly without prejudice against speedy renomination, in the hope that any subsequent nomination can focus on the content of the revised version, and avoid personal mud-slinging. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Turkism in Armenia

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

The article has a wrong name, the Template:Anti-Turkism was deleted before, the article focuses mainly on acts outside of Armenia, and it is not explained why Armenians act against Turkish defenders and diplomats of the Turkish view of the Armenian Genocide Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever topic that may exist under this title certainly isn't the one that was brought into existence by Saotura. Saotura is apparently here as a denialist of Armenian genocide, repeatedly adding stuff to counteract the idea that Turks killed thousands of Armenians in a purposeful genocide. Saotura introduces instead the idea that Armenians are targeting Turks for no reason at all.[36][37] On his user page, he says that a living person, Kurdish nationalist leader Abdullah Öcalan, must be killed.[38] I'm afraid Saotura is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia. Rather, he's here to push a hateful right-wing Turkish nationalist viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How's that related to the article? WP:BATTLEGROUND. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 10:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The intention with which the article was created is certainly related to the article. Lennart97 (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not have explained it better than Binksternet above. Lennart97 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator (User:Paradise Chronicle) has just now all but blanked the article. I don't think that's helpful for the AfD discussion, and will likely lead to an edit war with the original author. In any case, subsequent participants in this discussion might want to take into the account the version of the article at the time of its nomination. Lennart97 (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lennart97 most was related to the Armenian Genocide and to events outside of Armenia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware, and that's one of many reasons the article should be deleted. There's no need to remove the content first, unless you intend on improving and keeping the article. Anyway, I commented mainly to notify others that the version you nominated for deletion is very different from the current version, which is relevant to the discussion. Lennart97 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be political propaganda so I guess we should be grateful that there is so little content in the article. If there is a legitimate context in which to add this material then it can be mentioned in other articles. The previous, more extensive, content was a POVFORK of other existing articles. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a platform for nationalistic propaganda Addictedtohistory (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to revert Saotora's edits. He redirected Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia to here, and copy pasted the text from there, also making the additions that you all oppose. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 10:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the article mentions unnecessary stuff about the Armenia–Turkey relations. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 10:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article and the topic itself are relevant, though Saotura's edits are problematic. I agree with Solavirum above, that we need to revert Saotura's edits to the previous form of this article (when it was called "Anti-Azerbaijanism in Armenia", which was much less problematic. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Solavirum and CuriousGolden: I'm confused here: both Anti-Azerbaijanism in Armenia and Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia have never been anything else than redirects. It would probably help if you link to the version of the article that you want to restore it to. Lennart97 (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I confused it as the current name for Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment article used to be "Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia". It seems that most people object to the fact that large portion of the content in this page aren't actually about the article topic (in particular, most are related to anti-turkism by Armenians everywhere, not just in Armenia). Apart from that, actually related content in the article seems well-sourced, so we can just remove the irrelevant content and Keep. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing un- or poorly sourced content doesn't solve the POV issue, though. Just for example: the section on WW1 is well-sourced, but is heavily biased as it fails to mention these events happened in the context of the Armenian genocide. The same goes for listing every single Armenian massacre of Azerbaijanis in the Karabakh war while failing to provide any context on said war. While sourced, I don't think anyone would argue that these sections present a neutral point of view. Also, Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment's section on Armenia does a fine job of presenting the topic in a neutral manner, so I wonder why a separate article is needed. Lennart97 (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are not hard to WP:BOLD. Can you say the same about this though. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 17:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan seems like a decent article to me, which places events in context instead of just pushing POV. But that is not the article under discussion here (see WP:WHATABOUT). If you feel it needs to be improved, you can start a discussion at its talk page or some other appropriate place. Lennart97 (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Political propaganda, no additional value for Wikipedia. -- PhJ (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Lennart97. Can easliy be redirected to Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment#Armenia. Eurofan88 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad proposal. But we'd had to copy some info from there first, I think. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 18:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Full of nationalistic propaganda. --Steverci (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE: strike double vote)
Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete political propaganda that is of no use to Wikipedia and is WP:NOT. Java Hurricane 07:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but re-write using better sources. Anti-Turkic sentiment clearly exists in Armenia, considering all the ethnic cleansing and massacres perpetrated by Armenian nationalists against the Turkic people. Such topics are covered in Wikipedia, like for example Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan. Maybe the name could be adjusted as well. Grandmaster 10:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

...considering all the ethnic cleansing and massacres perpetrated by Armenian nationalists against the Turkic people.... That's the exact narrative of this article up for AfD Addictedtohistory (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is very well documented, actually, by HRW, Amnesty and many other impartial organizations. Not my POV. Grandmaster 19:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your point of view is exactly the same as Saotura, who composed the article. The problem that both of you have is that you refuse to see that Armenians are angry because of the Armenian genocide originated by Turks; the Armenians are backed into a corner and have been acting in self-preservation. Saotura's article fails to present the topic neutrally, and instead ignores the elephant in the room. It doesn't matter how many respected sources agree that the Armenians committed atrocities against Turks if you don't tell the reader why they were angry in the first place. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that genocide could be an excuse for total ethnic cleansing of Armenia from Turkic people. So what if Armenians were angry? Does it justify atrocities against other people? Especially considering that Azerbaijani people inhabiting Armenia had nothing to do with whatever happened in the Ottoman empire. Sorry, but I see no logic in what you write. Grandmaster 10:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being subject to a genocide doesn't justify genociding/massacring/expulsing other peoples. Armenian Genocide was horrible, but using that to somehow justify the fact that Azeris and other Turkic peoples in Armenia suffered in the hands of Armenians years later is absurd and biased. Apologism for massacres is disgusting. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, being an apologist for massacres and ethnic cleansing is bad as being a genocide denier. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 10:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the whole application is just Turkophobia. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 10:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by "application"? Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is not any clear reason for deleting the whole page except the deleted paragraph by Saotura; however, a deletion of the paragraph does not mean that it should be deleted. If there's a problem about writing, sources, or information deletion; this should be addressed on the talk page, not in here. The page itself is also pretty long (27,558 characters); and therefore, I'm against to the deletion or redirection/merging. Wikipedia is not for ad hominem. Ahmetlii (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

There is nothing in the article that shows IN! Armenia exists a general Anti-Turkic sentiment. There is no mention of the Kyrgyz, the Uzbeks, the Uyghurs etc. who are also counted as Turkic peoples. Armenians are against the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide, this no-one denies, but that being against the Armenian Genocide is portrayed as being racist, is just Turkish POV. Specially as Turkism was influenced heavily be conscious racists openly competing with the Nazis on who (The Turks or the Germans) the first racist nation is. Then also, there have been no improvements made by any of the keep voting editors. Not even of the ones who also mentioned there is POV issue.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking that to link Turkism with NAZI ideology without a source is a bit doubtful, I bring here a source It's on Page 89 and Jacob Landau is one of the better known scholars on the topic Turkish Nationalism/Pan-Turkism.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, I agree about User:Saotura looks like a POV pusher; however, as I mentioned before, this is not a good reason for deleting. I believe that I will be able to rearrange the whole article after doing a research from reliable sources. Then the problem is on the page's some sources, not the whole article since I have even seen a reference from New York Times. I think that the topic itself is notable and has enough reliable references, however, due to the insertion of unreliable sources, it probably made confusion. Of course we should eventually select the reliable sources' informations and cleanup the whole page. But the thing I mentioned is this is not a reason for deletion, we can address and solve issues quickly on the article's talk page. Ahmetlii (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's clear that opinions here are lining up along two lines. One is the generally global view that the Armenian Genocide was a foundational turning point in Armenian–Turk relations. The other is the Turkish nationalist position that the Armenian Genocide was not a genocide, and was not important in the history of anti-Turkish sentiment. I don't see how Wikipedia can possibly select the Turkish nationalist position as valid. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this article is mostly about Azerbaijanis, not Turkish people, so they're not related to Armenian Genocide. If you have sources connecting any of the listed events in the article (except Saotura's additions of irrelevant material such as outside-Armenia terrorist attacks) that list these massacres and expulsions of Azerbaijanis with the Armenian Genocide, then go ahead and add it. No one here is denying the genocide as far as I can see (except maybe Saotura), so it's not good to accuse people of such things. Refusing apogolism to massacres /=/ Denying a genocide. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Political propaganda. Alex-h (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've removed all irrelevant material from the page (things committed outside Armenia & most things related to Armenian Genocide). Rest of the material seems relevant and well-sourced. Any other issue of POV needs to be addressed in the talk page of the article and is not a proper reason for deletion. Do any of you still have a problem with the current cleaned-up version? Binksternet, Alex-h, Paradise Chronicle, Lennart97, JavaHurricane, DanielRigal. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Extended discussion, no new votes

This doesn't change my vote, unfortunately. The article is still not a general overview of anti-Turkic/Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, but instead a long list of Armenian killings of Azerbaijanis without context, mostly in the form of an Azerbaijani-POV retelling of the Karabakh conflicts. Lennart97 (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already from the lead sentence, a common reader is mislead.

Anti-Turkism or Turkophobia, hostility, intolerance, or racism against Turkic people, Turkish culture and Turkic countries,[1][2] is widespread in Armenia. A clear falsification. Armenia has a good relations with all turkic countries, besides Azerbayjian it's in war with and turkey that committed genocide, appropriated their homeland, cultural heritage and church property (as they see it). The article is heavily azerbaijiani sourced, some sources themselves use azerbaijani sources or base on testimony of azerbaijanis. Most of the content of the article is not even linked to events that occurred in Armenia. Addictedtohistory (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You all do realize that some POV issues on parts of an article isn't grounds for deletion? Hope the admin that handles this request considers the actual guidelines including WP:NOTAVOTE. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still *Delete, still a propaganda page. Turkey and Azerbaijan are not all Turkic countries. Also last time I checked almost all events happened outside of Armenia and not in Armenia. There already exist articles about the Nagorno Karabakh wars or Armenian-Azerbaijani or Armenia Turkish relations, so no need for this one.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey and Azerbaijan aren't Turkic countries? What? Are you trying to say that not everyone in the countries is Turkic? If yes, then how is that even relevant at all? The article focuses on things done on Azerbaijanis as an ethnic group, not the nation. And when was the last time you checked? Because almost everything in the article is about things that happen in Armenia now (which is why I pinged you in the first place). About your last point, by your logic, Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia shouldn't exist since Nagorno-Karabakh war articles and Armenian-Azerbaijani relations article already exist. The article's topic is clearly notable, proven by an extensive range of sources provided in the article body. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Turkey and Azerbaijan count as turkic countries, but if one is against Turkey or Azerbaijan due to historic events like the Armenian Genocide or the Nagorno Karabakh war it doesn't mean Armenia is against ALL TURKIC COUNTRIES. Armenia has good relations with other turkic countries.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And how is this an argument for the article's deletion? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments are presented further up. I believe there were provided enough. I was only answering your question as you didn't seem to understand parts of the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The recently reworked version of the article still contains the original flaw of WP:SYNTH, stringing together a series of violent actions to produce a topic. A topic should come from WP:SECONDARY sources describing the topic as such, not describing individual components. Otherwise you have a list article. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Addictedtohistory: Armenia has a good relations with all turkic countries, besides Azerbayjian Armenia does barely have any relations with Turkic countries except of Kazakhstan. Even if they have, the definition of Anti Turkism is more directed towards Turkey rather than Turkic peoples. There is also anti Azerbaijani, anti Tatar sentiment, etc. Beshogur (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Suddenly lot of people popped out and calling it "propaganda". I smell a possible Wikipedia:Canvassing. Beshogur (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malarkey. You have no proof, and I can assure you I have no part in canvassing: none at all. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

here you find the various diplomatic relations between Turkic countries and Armenia. Beyond Turkey and Azerbaijan, there is no conflict as to merit an Anti-Turkism in Armenia. Much less racism as it is currently mentioned in the lead. In many countries it is represented with an Embassy. Their relations are mostly not really close, but there is a dialogue.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the article, I think it needs a cleanup. I see no reason to delete it. Either you delete Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan or you keep it. I don't think Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan article should be deleted either. This is double standarts. Beshogur (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to closing admin: ParadiseChronicle manipulating administrators by claiming the term anti-Turkism means anti-Turkism (as a nationalistic ideology) but not "anti-Turk"ism, which means anti Turkishness or hatred against Turks. Can compare to Antisemitism. He also claims Turkish people are not Turkic people, which is absolutely ridiculous. Beshogur (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAPBOX - Kevo327 (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAPBOX and whatnot. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire page is inherently irrelevant material, per WP:PLOT. --Steverci (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE to closing admin Steverci has voted twice. There may be other double votes. Spudlace (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - NOTE to closing admin This was a response to the updates. --Steverci (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If have changed your deletion rationale to WP:PLOT you should strike the first vote to avoid double voting. I have done it for you this time. Spudlace (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- 2nd NOTE to closing admin Curious Golden (CG) asked selected voters on their opinion after CG made some rearrangements in the article and claimed after the arrangements that the page is good. So other voters could have been encouraged to vote again.
Keep AfD is not clean up. There is a notable topic here that can be turned into a neutral article. Notability is established by sources like Raymond Kévorkian [39] (on the Turkish perception of anti-Turkism) and Gerard Libaridian [40] (on the shift from anti-Communism to anti-Turkism in Soviet Armenia). This is not propaganda. Both Kevorkian and Libaridian well-known Armenian scholars from the French and American diaspora communities respectively. Spudlace (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

There is not a single phrase in the article about the (Pan-)Turkism Kevorkian writes about in the linked pages of the book (Couldn't find Anti-Turkism though). Here, Armenian resistance against Turkification during the Ottoman Empire is treated. And names of known Pan-Turkists at the time flashed up during my glance through the pages.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, you nominated this because "The article has a wrong name". Why take this to AfD instead of proposing RM on the talk page? editors here have argued for deletion with arguments like "you refuse to see that Armenians are angry because of the Armenian genocide originated by Turks". What does that have to do with protesters blocking an Azerbaijani film festival? I'm don't support deletion of notable and encyclopedic articles because they have content problems. Spudlace (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spudlace: ParadiseChronicle also tried to delete 3/4 of Anti-Turkism which communist Bulgaria's assimilation policies, massacres on Iraqi Turkmens by Baath government, massacres by EOKA-B in Cyprus were included. Beshogur (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarians actions were against Turkish people, not against Turkic per se. You can't distinguish Turkish and Turkic? To be either against Turkey and Turkic is something entirely different. Turkic includes other peoples as well, if one against Turkey of Azerbaijan its only against Turkey and Azerbaijan. The also, if Saddam acts against Turkmens, its against Turkmens per se, not against Turkic people per se. The armenians are against who wage war against them, they are not Anti Turkic. Is the USA against the Uyghurs if they fight against Turkmen or Turkish jihadists?, No, they are against Jihadists and not against Turkic people not involved in the conflict. Then if you want to term it as the ideology Turkism, the article must be reworked from scratch, as then it becomes an article against Turkification and Turkish racism against Armenians.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarians actions were against Turkish people, not against Turkic per se. yeah because Bulgarian Turks are not Turkic people right? Such a low argument. Plus I advice to learn the meaning of Anti-Turkism. It's not Turkism as ideology but Turkishness. How many times am I supposed to tell? Beshogur (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I, how many times I have to repeat myself? If one is against Turkish policy or culture, it doesn't mean they are against Turkic people or culture. Then also, if your argument that Turkism is about Turkishness is valid, what do the events concerning Azerbaijan/i do in the article? They are not from Turkey, but are from a separat country called Azerbaijan. There exists an article about the country on Wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle: you are literally inventing something new. The term Anti Turkism is pure based on Turkish people not Turkic peoples, but lesser extent. Please learn the definition of the term. Also you still claim Turkish people are not Turkic people. Beshogur (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the leads on Anti-Turkism, Anti-Turkism in in Armenia and Pan-Turkism say something entirely different. At Anti-Turkism:is hostility, intolerance, or racism against Turkic people, Turkic countries itself, at Pan-Turkism: Turkism applies only to Turkic people, at Anti-Turkism in Armenia hostility, intolerance, or racism against Turkic people, Turkish culture and Turkic countries Then also, if your POV is viewed as accurate most of the article is complete WP:OR as Azerbaijanis are Turkic and not Turkish. second-most numerous ethnic group among the Turkic peoples AFTER the Turkish people per lead of Azerbaijanis. I have actually pointed out that Turkey counts as a Turkic country in this very discussion on the 23rd December. Azerbaijan also counts as Turkic country, but Armenia is not in conflict with them because of their Turkic heritage, but due to their wars. Again, Armenia is against people who wage wars against them but not against Turkic countries or people per se. I believe the further discussion on what Anti-Turkism is, should take place at the Anti Turkism talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move notable parts to Anti-Turkism#Armenia. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not the Armenian genocide, but other events should remain that happend between Turks & Armenians. Except for the Armenian genocide, there were massacres against Turks after 1915 events such as even in 80s Asala massacres it is very absurd to link this to the events in 1915 and erase the others between 1800s to 1915 & 1915 beyond today. There has been a frown since the 1800s between two nations. The users who want to be deleted the Armenia section above are with mostly already turkey & turko-phobes.. If I say 2 + 2? to these people they will say thats 5 cuz their emotions are in the forefront. They are not in the direction of logic and accuracy and they want such things to be erased. In short, the deletion of the Armenian genocide is debatable but not entire Armenia section.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does the argument become more credible when you present List of attacks by ASALA article as Asala massacres? Addictedtohistory (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new edits. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 13:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I voted before to remove irrelevant content. Now that I have done that and with new arguments that others have brought up, I believe keeping the article would be for the best. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good reworked and rewritten Shadow4dark (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on updates Despite the attempts to make the article seem more presentable, none of the issues have been resolved. There is no mention of over a century of Turkish crimes against humanity, which would show the article isn't about "hostility, intolerance, or racism". There is not even a single mention of the Armenian Genocide. And before someone tries to sneak in a trivia mention of the genocide to try fixing this, doing so would only prove this article isn't about "Anti-Turkism". The article remains a WP:SOAPBOX of selective information from either unreliable or POV sources. The article attempts to blame the Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–07 on "Anti-Turkism" with no mention of massacres committed by Tartars, and while Kazemzadeh's claim that "it is impossible to pin the blame for the massacres on either side" is carried over, the sources of Walker and Villari blaming Tartars are not carried over. World War I has no mention of the Armenian Genocide, and the numbers the article alleges Rummel gave are actually from a Turkish statistician which Rummel is casting doubt on. And somehow Soviet Russia deporting Azeris from Armenia can be blamed on "Anti-Turkism" in Armenia. The first Nagorno-Karabakh war makes no mention of Azeri mob violence being the cause of it, such as the Askeran clash and Sumgait pogrom, because this would again ruin the "Anti-Turkism" claim. And the 2020 war fails to mention that the Azeris were the first to target civilians in the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, which isn't mentioned at all. Many of the sources are still unreliable. Some are in Azeri or Turkish, others are written by pro-Turkic figures such as the bribed shill Svante Cornell. This article was clearly made (by a now indefinitely blocked user) out of spite for the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan article. He wanted to create an equivalent article for Armenia even though no similar sentiment existed. --Steverci (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. When I reviewed List of ASALA attacks linked during this discussion I saw the example of bombing a movie theater in Lebanon for showing Turkish films. Political grievances do not justify hate crimes or violence against innocents. Armenians are allowed to be angry and in our culture we believe in free speech and encourage people to engage with difficult political feelings through appropriate channels - free speech, art, cinema, and meditation. But we don't tolerate, condone, glorify or advocate for vigilante vengeance attacks. If the sources cited in the article don't support the inclusion of some of this content, that should be discussed on the talk page, not just TNT because it's easier. Spudlace (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with reservations. Articles such as this are always problematic, and they often degenerate into a laundry list of grievances (which this is) with no attempt at explaining the complex history of conflicts between the different groups of people. It is therefore arguably a POV WP:SOAPBOX, but deleting it would simply be a denial that such sentiment exists, and that would be wrong too since I think the subject is notable enough to exist as a separate article. I would also suggest that those who object to the article work to improve it, and instead of edit-warring, agree on a framework so that it can be improved (for example, what sources to use). I would recommend adding a section on its causes (e.g. on Armenian Genocide which is by and large recognised by many countries), and trim the list of incidences, because frankly in all conflicts you get atrocities committed by both sides, there is no need to list all of them, only the important ones need to be given. I'd also remove all content that rely exclusively on partisan sources, use only those from independent sources. It is also too heavily skewed to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflicts, which is not appropriate given the title, since it is not specifically about these conflicts. A wider view on this is more useful. Hzh (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TNT. I think that this topic does merit an article, but as of now this is a laundry list of occurrences that do not help in the slightest in explaining the phenomenon in Armenia. A list of random atrocities committed by Armenians contributes almost nothing to actually learning about the topic itself; a good, neutral, article on this topic would be great, but as of now it is just an indiscriminate list that helps no one at all in understanding the topic. Zoozaz1 talk 23:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV article written by a now banned user who described himself as a Turkish nationalist. T8612 (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of claims about this article being propaganda/POV/offensive, but I see a subject which passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split I think the article should be split in Anti-Turkism in Armenia (anti-Turkey stuff) and Anti-Azerbaijanism in Armenia. As far as I know, the conflicts between Turks and Armenians and between Azerbaijanis and Armenians are not interrelated. Armenians mostly dislike Turks because of the Armenian Genocide and dislike Azerbaijanis because of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Grouping both in a single article is like trying to team up both nations against Armenia. Also, there is no other article dedicated to anti-Turkism (as to the whole Turkic peoples) on Wikipedia, so no common practice is followed. Super Ψ Dro 12:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Turkish sentiment in Armenia is a redirect to this page. Anti-Turkism in the sense of all Turkic people is tough to source, and I wouldn't know which movement or country is against Turkic people in general. That there exist nationalists in almost every country is clear, but their sentiments are (as to my humble knowledge) not exclusively directed against Turkic people but against foreigners of several ethnicities and nationalities.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment also redirects to here. The article suggests that if people in Armenia are against Turkish or Azerbaijani warfare, are against all Turkic people all-together.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-Turkism" doesn't mean being against all Turkic peoples, it can be any one of the Turkic peoples. Regardless, I think the article should be renamed "Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia" since there's nothing about any Turkic people other than Azeris in the article right now. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. We should then remove the second paragraph at the Early period section though. Super Ψ Dro 22:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In an AfD discussion, the notability of the subject itself is the only thing that should be considered. Neither the POV of the article editors nor the notion that it might be propaganda (I can argue the same for ton of other articles on here) is relevant to this discussion. StellarHalo (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@StellarHalo: Actually nothing has been done to prove the notability of the subject. It has no where near the amount of coverage as in the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan article, which this article was created out of spite for. No Armenian president has ever declared "our main enemies are Azeris of the world". "Anti-Turkism in Armenia" is inherently WP:UNDUE. --Steverci (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic Logic

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

A seemingly non-notable company that fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Checking WP:VG/RS, the company is mentioned in WP:PASSING in a small handful of sources, but there is nothing akin to significant coverage. The only thing that mentions the name twice is this interview, which is mostly about Alex Austin and as an interview also would not count towards notability. Don't be fooled by the many GamesIndustry.biz and GameZone articles, they are all press releases. IceWelder [✉] 09:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I created this article as a stub in 2006 (something I was quite surprised to learn just now), and now it's ... still a stub? Another consideration: I do not see that deleting it would remove any value from the two articles it links to (Gish and Zatikon). CWC 11:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all I was able to find was a press release in GamesIndustry.biz [41] and passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rude Boys (Ultimate)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete: Vanity sub-stub that has never been independently sourced, over the course of thirteen years. No evidence this "team" has ever met the GNG, meets no extant notability criteria. Ravenswing 23:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete per nom. Wikipedia needs to create a specific policy on all these obscure amateur sports clubs and leagues. Rogermx (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It already has: the GNG. Ravenswing 11:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M. Bhaskaran

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

~~Person is not notable enough to have an independent article~~ Shahoodu (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN as a "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". A notable Kozhikode politician who was in active politics for more than 50 years and had held many elected public offices. As expected he has been covered in National English newspapers like Hindu and Times of India. There is enough material from reliable sources.^[1] He was the mayor of Kozhikode from 2005 to 2010^[2]^[3]^[4] In addition to these english sources, lot more coverage is available in Malayalam language. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Former Mayor M. Bhaskaran passes away". The Hindu. 21 October 2020. Retrieved 26 December 2020.
^ "CPM leader M Bhaskaran passes away at 80 | Kozhikode News - Times of India". The Times of India. TNN. 22 October 2020. Retrieved 26 December 2020.
^ "Former Kozhikode mayor M Bhaskaran dies at 80". Mathrubhumi. Retrieved 26 December 2020.
^ "Bhaskaran out of CPI(M) district secretariat". The Hindu. 13 March 2018. Retrieved 26 December 2020.

I would like to withdraw my nomination. Shahoodu (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While the argument to delete makes intuitive sense, those arguing for it have not quite demonstrated the non-viability of this page, and as such NOTCLEANUP applies. In discussing this, and similar, pages in the future, it will be helpful to focus on whether this can be a reasonable list, rather than whether it currently is. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Egyptian inventions and discoveries

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

New article which violates WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:RGW and WP:FRINGE.

It reads like a fancruft which is mostly unsourced and has mentioned things like Law as invention of Egyptians but not Slavery.

The most used source is www.touregypt.net which is an unreliable source.

While the subject is notable, it needs to go before editors can write a fair article with some additional oversight than leaving it to become extension of fringe POV. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgethedragonslayer has posted this at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard at 05:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree that "list of inventions" is not the right format for this; also agree that something might be salvageable as a less ambitious "stuff that we know existed in ancient Egypt because evidence survives" article. Swimming as an Egyptian "invention" is just too silly! GPinkerton (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far too broad, especially in the modern world. It would be more manageable to restrict it to ancient Egypt and maybe prehistoric Egypt. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you want to break it into different time periods, then discuss that. The article for America does that already. If you have a problem with the article, then discuss it on the talk page. Look at the template! Template:Inventions These are common articles. Any problems can be solved by regular editing, there no reason to delete everything. Dream Focus 09:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the list is way too broad and very weakly substantiated; many entries are wholly uncited; the main source is unreliable; and many of the claims do not even assert Egyptian invention, e.g. "Flag or Emblem – As early as the Predynastic times, each nome had its own standard": well, maybe they did, but other empires had similar things. Or "some scholars have argued that..."; "Evidence ... suggests the presence of..."; "...was used in Egypt as early as..." - these and many others are not proof of "invention" (just deleting these 3 examples won't begin to fix the problem). Delete as a hopeless ragbag. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An absurd nomination which is so preposterous that it's a sign of Wikipedia's senility that it is being taken seriously. Let's count the ways this is wrong:

It is clearly contrary to policies such as WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
The contrary idea of WP:TNT – that we have to "destroy the village to save it" – is not a policy nor even a guideline – and is contrary to WP:BLANKING.
The topic clearly passes WP:LISTN as a quick browse soon finds sources such as The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology which says things like "it follows that metallic copper was an Egyptian discovery ... on present evidence, both glazed steatite and glazed quartz were Egyptian inventions."
The existing page has 359 citations of sources including Encyclopedia Britannica; Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt; numerous histories of mathematics and a variety of books from respectable university presses. The idea that we should just wipe all these out and start again from scratch is obviously disruptive.
We have so many similar pages for other countries that there's a template {{Inventions}} and category. These include countries such as Azerbaijan and Bulgaria which not so well known as a cradle of civilisation. And WP:OSE explains that "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes".
There's a vague wave to WP:FRINGE but that cuts both ways. The idea that river valley civilizations tended to produce hydraulic empires as a result of the need for engineering to control the water is so well-established that it is more of an orthodoxy than fringe.

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an interesting case where I think WP:CLEANUP may be more appropriate than deletion. The delete commentators are correct that a lot of the listed entries are overbroad and potentially original research while the entire list appears to be overly focused on a peculiar idea as to what "discovery" means. On the other hand, knowing that there is Egyptian provenance for such things as measuring the circumference of the Earth is a perfectly encyclopedic enterprise. Coming up with rigorous and solid WP:LISTCRIT and removing the cruft definitely needs to be done, but I'm not convinced that we are in WP:TNT territory here as of yet. jps (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mainly unsourced and overly broad article. I agree it makes no sense to keep it and if it has been ever recreated it must go through WP:AFC. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We are volunteers and don't have the time to fix every faulty entry with lengthy explanation especially when basically whole list is unsubstantiated. desmay (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a fairly harmless list article. Whether everything in it is accurate is neither here nor there. If there are errors, they should be removed by editing, not deletion. Because Egyptian history goes to 3rd millennium, Egypt has a lot of firsts, but many will be first recorded, rather than actually first. I doubt the Egyptians invented swimming, but they provided the first picture of it, for example. List articles no not necessarily need sources, as the object to to link to articles (which will - or should - be sourced). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have List of Serbian inventions and discoveries which is far worse quality-wise, so I don't see a need to TNT this. There are plenty of sources, several of which have been already mentioned in this discussion. I do support the suggestion to split the article by timeferame, but that's really a discussion for the talk page, not this AFD discussion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and well-sourced - as has been pointed out, there is an entire category of these lists: Category:Lists of inventions or discoveries that has existed since 2009. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean-up and rename - These may all be the FIRST KNOWN incidences of these things or processes etc according to existing evidence, but it absolutely cannot be said that the Egyptians invented swimming or fortifications or pets or irrigation or cancer or depression etc. Perhaps rename to "Oldest recorded incidences of ...", or something similar? Wdford (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article looks well-sourced. This should not be considered WP:FRINGE either. Some clean-up, polishing and clarification could be had though, as with most Wiki articles. HocusPocus00 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator himself says the topic is notable, yet makes an insufficiently justified arguement for delete. As others have noted, I agree that it must be cleaned up and improved instead of deleting. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Intro stated "Just being only the mayor of a city does not make any person notable." Other opinions pointed out that this is the mayor of a very large city and that both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG have been met. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soumini Jain

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

~~Just being only the mayor of a city does not make any person notable. There is also not enough independent reliable sources to establish notability Shahoodu (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

User blocked for sockpuppetry. --Walrus Ji (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN as a "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". As an elected mayor and senior party leader, she has been covered extensively for her work and has been the subject of many news reports. e.g. "Kochi Mayor Soumini Jain firmly in the saddle as Congress brass reaffirms support". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 26 December 2020.--Walrus Ji (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above - she is an elected leader of a city of 600,000 people Victuallers (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Brévannes

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

Notability concerns. The first two references are bibliographies; I can't access them but they don't support any substantial statements in the article. Beyond that, we have the "Bibliothèque nationale de France" website, and some other wiki (Biblio Curiosa) as sources. I don't see substantial coverage showing that this author of 20th century French erotica is notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I can comment hear, Roland Brévannes, under his more used pseudonym Don Brennus Aléra and his edition Select Bibliothèque is the more prolific pornographic french author and editor of the period between the two wars. A reasoned bibliography, as the one of Alphonse Momas still edited by me and constantly cousulted, is (of course in my opinion) a helpful support. DollyEsclave (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-12 ✍️ create

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 13:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollin' Dice

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

Notability concerns. With the discogs refs (such as [42]) removed, none of the references mention the article. The artist does not have an article, and the article creator notes the lack of good references in their edit summary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find almost nothing on Jimmy Jackson the soul singer, and note that there is an unrelated jazz musician of the same name. This Jimmy Jackson seems to have been a background session player who knew lots of famous people and got them to appear on this album, the only release bearing his name. The album also has no reliable coverage; I can only find it in basic database entries of obscure 70s albums, and even those are rare. The article's creator may be a collector who wants to spread the word about a lost classic, but there's just not enough info available to do that here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Doomsdayer. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I did say (and was noted by the other editor), is I did not have a lot of sources to go off of here. But below are some reasons as to why I think that the page is notable enough to stay on Wikipedia.

1. The notability of the people working on the album. You have people like Gene Page, Ray Parker, Jr., Roland Bautista, King Errison, Bobbye Hall, Melvin Ragin and Dick Hyde were all in the process of making this album. Key players that would go on to be in or were already in notable groups, people who had previously played with Marvin Gaye as session players, and to create chart topping hits (Parker creating the #1 Billboard Hot 100, Ghostbusters). This shows both the humble beginnings and strides that these artists were in during their most prolific period. Even if you don't hear the music itself, the musician connections are worthwhile just by themselves.

2. The possibility of creating more links for pages. While creating this page, I found there were several credits that I was adding that didn't already have a page on Wikipedia for them. Take for instance, Milton Sincoff, a creative director specializing in Creative Packaging at Buddah Records. Milton would design such notable album covers such as "Still Bill" by Bill Withers, "Coming From Reality" by Rodriguez, "Superfly", "Back To The World", "Sweet Exorcist", "Got To Find A Way" by Curtis Mayfield, and "The Baby Huey Story (The Living Legend)" by Baby Huey, just to name a few. There isn't an article for Milton on Wikipedia yet, but it's possible this could lead to the start of creating a new page. That's how this page was created, because I was provided an outlet to do so from Dick Hyde's page.

3. To spread awareness about the album and Jimmy. What's so engaging about the album and the artist himself is the lack of information that's online about him. We don't know for sure when he was born, and the only way I was able to come to the conclusion that he died was because of a comment that was left by his son on nearly all single rips of Mr. Jackson's singles that are on Youtube, stating that 4/30/2003 was the date of his passing. An effort of this page being created was also to help visibility heighten of the artist as well, so that perhaps more information will be created and contributed by others who knew them personally. I went through all the pages on Google that referenced Rollin' Dice with Jimmy Jackson, and there was not a whole lot.

For certain what I can say is that the single "Rollin' Dice" was released sometime during 1975 or before then because of one Newspaper article I found from a June 18th, 1975 article in the Manchester Journal Enquirer. It mentions that Jimmy "made two "soul" recordings on the Buddah label", and gives the most information that I was able to find on Mr. Jackson by far. Police officer, soul singer, 6' 3", and son of a gospel singer. It's things like this article that can help others view and get motivated to contribute to the site as well. Here are the links for the Manchester Journal article and currently my completed documentation on Jimmy Jackson, complete with images and links to the sources: Manchester: https://newspaperarchive.com/manchester-journal-inquirer-jun-18-1975-p-36/ Image Library (contains Manchester Article): https://imgur.com/a/4RBCzef

After assessing the situation, I can understand reason for concern. Discogs is seen by Wikipedia as being unreliable due to the user sourced information, and also I assume AllMusic is to an extent if it isn't being used for reviews. But that's where the difficulties lie, I can find no chart history and no published reviews of the album. I couldn't even find a mention of it in Billboard (verbal or chart history on their website), the closest I got was a group called The Hitchhikers doing a cover of the song "Rollin' Dice" (referred to as just "Rolling Dice") from a 1976 issue: https://books.google.com/books?id=FSUEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT89&dq=billboard+rollin%27+dice+1976&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbqIDI6ertAhUPCs0KHX0WDPQQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=billboard%20rollin'%20dice%201976&f=false

For other information on the album, it's sparse to say the least if we are not talking about user-sourced information from websites. What I can say in my defense is that I own this album personally, and that's where I was able to get a correct list of credits from. I cross-referenced with Discogs & Allmusic to both learn and confirm the credits I was listing and linking to existing pages with were correct. The way that I look at it, the page will be a major way of possibly leading to sources to credit as well if the right person reads it and publishes an article about it (from a credible source, of course). But I feel that won't happen otherwise if the page is deleted. For conduct on what should be done with the page, I'm not sure otherwise with the given situation. If it comes to the consensus despite my explanation on the topic, I'll be disappointed but understanding as to why it happened.

Thank you for your interest in making sure the right thing is done for the article and for the website, and look forward to seeing what others have to say about it as well.

WolfXCIX (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)WolfXCIX[reply]

Comment - @WolfXCIX: Thanks for taking the time to give us so much information, but none of it helps with the album's notability, and having notability is what helps people and things qualify for a Wikipedia article. The album is not notable because it had notable people on it as session players; see notability is not inherited. If Mr. Jackson and this album deserve more recognition, that is valid but Wikipedia is not a promotional service. You have gone on a fan's quest to find info on what looks to be a lost classic album by an unappreciated musician; kudos for your efforts but Wikipedia is the wrong outlet. There are lots of other websites full of collectors interested in obscure gems. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be a great album, for all I know, but I cannot find a single source to show notability, hence it must go (borderline A9 case, IMO). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starface

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

Much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Lampoon's Funny Money, this show was way too short-lived to get any attention whatsoever. Found brief mentions of it in articles about Bonaduce and a couple of press releases, but literally nothing else. Per WP:NTV: "a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've seen this before. I believe I first encountered this type of case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scratch 'n' Sniff's Den of Doom, about a show that lasted 1+1⁄2 months. This one didn't last much longer. Also, it's on a relatively minor channel, Game Show Network. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network - Exactly like the other show whose AFD was mentioned in the nom, this extremely short lived show gets very little coverage in sources, and not much that goes beyond confirming that it existed. However, also like in that other AFD, an appropriate list, where it already is included, exists, so Redirecting it there would make the most sense. Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Pérez (soccer coach)

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

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played or managed in a WP:FPL. Plus, page naming convention in incorrect. MYS 77 ^✉ 00:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - assistant managers very rarely pass GNG and Pérez is no exception. He gets more mentions than most but very little to actually build a biography from Spiderone 21:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eger Karl Johan

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

A spammy article about a non-notable department store. I couldn't find anything that would justify inclusion and had a quick chat with a Norwegian speaker who said they couldn't find anything either. Blablubbs|talk 00:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect can be created if desired, but there's a weak consensus there's no value in redirection. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Gokoel

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

Despite passing WP:NCRIC, the article clearly fails WP:GNG as I struggled to find any sources for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the tournament he played in. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think - I'm not sure that there's really any benefit to redirecting in this case is there? Convince me otherwise and I'll reconsider. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for low-level international cricketers and by consensus that presumption is is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met – and this doesn't. The only sources we have are databases and incidental routine coverage which do not establish notability per SPORTCRIT. No value in redirecting to a tournament article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article totally fails to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Dudnath

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

Despite passing WP:NCRIC, the article clearly fails WP:GNG as I struggled to find any sources for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd agree that there's little or no chance of this meeting GNG in a meaningful way. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for low-level international cricketers and by consensus that presumption is is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met – and this doesn't. The only sources we have are databases and routine match coverage which do not establish notability per SPORTCRIT. No value in redirecting anywhere. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the complete failure of GNG is of much greater importance than the borderline and trivial passing of NCRIC Spiderone 17:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohindra Boodram

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

Despite passing WP:NCRIC, the article clearly fails WP:GNG as I struggled to find any sources for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He did captain the Suriname cricket team ([43], [44]), but if nothing else pops up, then redirect to the tournament he played in. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see a redirect working here and it risks someone blindly putting a link in to a name and it ending up in the wrong place. I might be able to be convinced though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for low-level international cricketers and by consensus that presumption is is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met – and this doesn't. The only sources we have are databases and routine match coverage which do not establish notability per SPORTCRIT. No value in redirecting to a tournament article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He played for Essequibo in Guyana: Stabroek News and Kaieteur News pull up a few name drops for games in Guyana before and after. No opinion on notability, just throwing in my 2 cents. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shazam Ramjohn

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

Despite passing WP:NCRIC, the article clearly fails WP:GNG as I struggled to find any sources for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the tournament he played in. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see a redirect working here and it risks someone blindly putting a link in to a name and it ending up in the wrong place. I might be able to be convinced though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for low-level international cricketers and by consensus that presumption is is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met – and this doesn't. The only sources we have are databases and routine match coverage which do not establish notability per SPORTCRIT. No value in redirecting to a tournament article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Smith (cricketer)

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

Despite passing WP:NCRIC, the article clearly fails WP:GNG as I struggled to find any sources for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the tournament he played in. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see a redirect as achieving anything very much in this case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for low-level international cricketers and by consensus that presumption is is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met – and this doesn't. The only sources we have are databases and routine match coverage which do not establish notability per SPORTCRIT. No value in redirecting to a tournament article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable cricket player. Not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that this page could serve a useful purpose; refashioning it explicitly into a DAB page, and deciding on a title, can happen via talk-page discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20 cents

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

In addition to being poorly named, it doesn't really add anything to (and is less complete than) Category:Twenty-cent coins. That's my two cents x 10. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as creator. I created this page based on the set index article 10 cents; the content of that page has since moved to the name 10 cent coin. HotdogPi 00:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to 20 cent coin (for consistency). It's good to have a SIA for this, which is more easily found by readers than a category (I imagine). It can easily be made just as complete as the category, of course. Lennart97 (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 20 cent coin; seems like a fine set-index article where it's clear it's about specific coins rather than an arbitrary monetary value. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly valid topic for a disambiguation page. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Former Mayor M. Bhaskaran passes away". The Hindu. 21 October 2020. Retrieved 26 December 2020.

[2] "CPM leader M Bhaskaran passes away at 80 | Kozhikode News - Times of India". The Times of India. TNN. 22 October 2020. Retrieved 26 December 2020.

[3] "Former Kozhikode mayor M Bhaskaran dies at 80". Mathrubhumi. Retrieved 26 December 2020.

[4] "Bhaskaran out of CPI(M) district secretariat". The Hindu. 13 March 2018. Retrieved 26 December 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]